article summary

DOES THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME EVOKE NEGATIVE PEER PRESSURE? ANALYSES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CLASSROOMS

EMILY A. GROVES AND JENNIFER L. AUSTIN UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH WALES

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom management system that employs an interde- pendent group contingency, whereby students work as a team to win the game. Although previ- ous 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 behav- ioral disorders, as well as in a primary classroom for students with mild developmental disabil- ities. 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. Key words: Good Behavior Game, classroom management, peer interactions, peer pressure,

emotional and behavioral disorders

The Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969) is a well-established classroom management intervention with a wealth of empirical evidence to support its use in reducing disruptions and promoting on-task behavior (see Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Mue- thing, & Vega, 2014a, for a review). The GBG involves setting classroom rules that students must follow to win the game. In most versions of the game, violating rules results in receiving points against the team (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969; Donaldson, Vollmer, Krous, Downs, & Berard, 2011; Harris & Sherman, 1973; Mitchell, Tingstrom, Dufrene, Ford, & Ster- ling, 2015). Other versions have taken a less punitive approach, whereby rule following

results in accruing points (e.g., Fishbein & Wasik, 1981; Groves & Austin, 2017; Pen- nington & McComas, 2017). The GBG typi- cally employs an interdependent group contingency (Litow & Pumroy, 1975), whereby points are earned as a team rather than as individuals. In the punishment-based ver- sion, a rule infraction from one team member results in a point for the entire team. In the reinforcement-based version, all team members must follow the rules for a point to be awarded. In both versions, those teams who meet a par- ticular criterion at the end of the game receive a reward. One concern that teachers may have about

the GBG’s interdependent group contingency is that it might evoke negative peer pressure toward those students who fail to follow the rules of the game. One way to mitigate these concerns is to program peer behavior into GBG rules. For example, Patrick, Ward, and Crouch (1998) awarded points to primary school volleyball teams when students displayed appropriate social behaviors (such as a pat on the back or an encouraging comment) and removed points from teams if students

This research was funded by the Tai Federation. We thank Fiona Simpson, Rachel Rees, Wayne Murphy, and Alec Clark for their support in conducting the study and Shorna Gumpley, Harriet Lawes, Emma Gillespie, Laura Smith, Sadie Pulman, and Cerys Hughes for their assis- tance with data collection. Address correspondence to Emily Groves at School of

Psychology, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, United Kingdom or emily. groves@southwales.ac.uk doi: 10.1002/jaba.513

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 3–16 NUMBER 1 (WINTER)

© 2018 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

3

displayed inappropriate social behaviors (such as offensive comments or gestures). Results showed that the GBG was effective in increas- ing appropriate social interactions and decreas- ing inappropriate social interactions. Salend, Reynolds, and Coyle (1989) investigated the effects of the GBG on the frequency of disrup- tive behaviors, including negative comments (e.g., teasing a peer, complaining about an assignment) in a residential school for adoles- cents with emotional and behavioral disorders. They found that the GBG resulted in a decrease across all inappropriate behaviors, including negative comments. However, the authors did not distinguish between negative comments directed towards peers and general negative comments (i.e., “This work is bor- ing”), so the specific effects on peer behavior were less clear. Despite potential teacher concerns,

researchers have argued that interdependent group contingencies promote prosocial behav- ior, even when those contingencies are not specifically programmed (Salend & Lamb, 1986; Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilc- zynski, 2006). However, data to support these assertions is relatively scarce. Packard (1970) anecdotally reported that peers congratulated one another when improvements in behavior were observed during an interdependent group contingency to increase student attentiveness. However, he also noted that students were quick to scold their peers when they noticed them violating the rules. In our experience, the potential for interdependent contingencies to evoke negative peer interactions (including bullying) is the most common concern cited by teachers when making decisions about using the GBG in their classrooms. These responses align with findings from prior research, which indicate that teachers prefer to avoid the risk of negative interactions by selecting individual contingencies over interde- pendent ones (Grandy, Madsen, & de Mersse- man, 1973; Harris & Sherman, 1973;

McLaughlin, 1974). Concerns about the potential negative effects of the GBG on peer interactions may be particularly acute in class- rooms where students already engage in high rates of problem behavior or have poor social skills (see Groves & Austin, 2017). Ironically, these classrooms may be the ones that will benefit most from an evidence-based classroom management approach. Unfortunately, systematic evaluations of

peer interactions during group contingency arrangements have been largely absent in the literature. A notable exception is Speltz, Shi- mamura, and McReynolds (1982), who mea- sured positive, negative, and neutral peer interactions during group contingencies aimed at increasing the number of correctly com- pleted arithmetic worksheet problems. In their study, the class was divided into groups of four, and each group was exposed to alternat- ing independent, interdependent, and depen- dent group contingencies. In the dependent group contingency arrangement, the perfor- mance of one student determined the out- come for the group. Two types of dependent group contingencies were used, one in which the target student was identified prior to the session and one in which the target student was not identified. The authors found that although all conditions were effective at increasing correct arithmetic responses, only the dependent group contingency in which the student was identified resulted in a statis- tically significant increase in positive peer interactions. This increase was likely due to students offering assistance or encouragement to the target peer who was responsible for the group reward. Although Speltz et al. (1982) suggest that

interdependent contingencies are no more likely than other contingency arrangements to evoke positive or negative peer interactions, these results should be interpreted with cau- tion. Students were rewarded during the inter- dependent condition if the group average of

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN4

correct responses was above a particular crite- rion. However, students were not aware of the number of correct responses their peers attained. Therefore, the condition may have been less likely to occasion negative peer inter- actions because it was not clear to the students which member of the group had engaged in behavior that resulted in a loss for the team. This procedure represents a significant depar- ture from typical GBG procedures, in which the students whose behaviors account for points or team losses are clearly visible to their peers. In addition to concerns regarding peer inter-

actions, teachers may also raise questions about whether the GBG is fair to students who typi- cally behave well (Mitchell et al., 2015). With an interdependent group contingency arrange- ment, it is possible that one or a few team members may consistently account for team losses (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969). Students may also view the game as unfair if those peers with the most disruptive behaviors are allocated to their teams (Barrish et al.). Unfortunately, very few studies have specifically measured students’ perceptions of the fairness of the GBG. Out of 30 published GBG studies between 1969 and 2017, we identified only five that addressed fairness in their measures of students’ percep- tions of treatment acceptability (Elswick & Casey, 2011; Lannie & McCurdy, 2007; McCurdy, Lannie, & Barnabas, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2015; Wright & McCurdy, 2011). Rat- ings of fairness among students were mixed. Therefore, more data are required to address teachers’ concerns about the fairness of the GBG. The purpose of the current study was to

measure positive and negative peer interactions during the GBG when no specific contingen- cies were arranged to target those behaviors (i.e., the rules of the game did not target peer interactions). Additionally, we sought to assess the teacher and student perceptions regarding the fairness of GBG procedures.

METHOD

Participants and Setting The study was conducted in two schools in

South Wales. One classroom was selected from each school. Classrooms were selected based on teachers’ self-reported need for additional class- room management support and willingness to participate in the study. Classroom 1 was in a secondary Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). Students in this school had been excluded from main- stream education due to aggression, property destruction, persistent noncompliance or defi- ance, excessive classroom disruption, or some combination of these issues. Five students aged between 15-16 years old and their teacher par- ticipated. Two students in Classroom 1 had a diagnosis of a specific learning difficulty (e.g., dyspraxia, dyslexia). Table 1 displays the specific diagnoses for each participant in both classrooms. Data were collected during Welsh Baccalaureate lessons, which were 45 min in duration and took place once per day, three times per week. Classroom 2 was in a Special Educational

Needs (SEN) school that served primary and secondary students. The participants in Class- room 2 included eight students aged between 9-10 years old and their teacher. The students in Classroom 2 were diagnosed with global developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, or autism. All students were verbal and able to communicate in complete sentences. Data were collected during literacy lessons, which were 1 hr in duration and took place once per day, four times per week.

Response Definitions and Measurement Target behaviors were selected based on pre-

vious research, observations in the classrooms, and discussion with the class teachers. In both classrooms, the primary dependent variables were positive peer interactions and negative peer interactions. Positive peer interactions included verbalizations or statements aimed at

5PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

encouraging peers, congratulating each other on performance (e.g., “That work is great,” “Well done!”), and requests or offers of assis- tance to one another. Negative peer interactions included verbalizations or gestures that threat- ened, provoked, or demeaned a peer (e.g., name calling, laughing at peer mistakes, threatening to hit a peer), or interfering with a peer’s work (e.g., taking a peer’s book or mate- rials). In accordance with Speltz et al. (1982), an interaction was considered directed towards a peer when the student used the peer’s name, their body was oriented towards the peer, or they had physical contact with the peer. Secondary dependent variables were mea-

sured to assess the direct effects of the GBG on classroom behavior. For each classroom, these targets were selected via pre-baseline observa- tions and consultation with the teacher. Swear- ing and off-task behavior were targeted in Classroom 1. Swearing included a student using any word that would be deemed a swear word. If a student used a swear word during a peer interaction, it was recorded as a peer interaction (positive or negative) and an instance of swear- ing. For example, if a student commended another student and also used a swear word

(e.g., “Good work, that’s __ing awesome!”), both a positive interaction and swearing were scored. Off-task behavior included the student’s body or gaze not being oriented towards teacher, whiteboard, or materials, and pencil not in hand or near paper (during writing tasks). Off-task behavior also was scored if the student used a mobile phone without permission. Verbal disruption and physical disruption were

targeted in Classroom 2. Verbal disruption included off-topic talking to peers (peer praise or corrective feedback was not scored as verbal disruption if it was related to the task), singing, making noises, and shouting. Physical disruption included playing with objects or classroom materials (e.g., rulers, pencils or erasers) and throwing objects or materials. In Classroom 1, the duration of observations

was typically 30 min and sessions were divided into 15-s intervals. Observations paused during transitions between activities within a lesson or if one or more students left the room, but no observations were less than 15 min. All stu- dents were observed during each interval and observers scanned the room from left to right. Frequency recording was used to measure

Table 1 Student Demographic Information

Classroom Name Age Sex Diagnosis

1 Charlotte 15 Female Specific learning difficulty, speech and language delays 1 Aled 16 Male No diagnosis 1 Gethin 16 Male Specific learning difficulty, speech and language delays 1 Cari 16 Female No diagnosis 1 Jac 15 Male No diagnosis 2 Morgan 10 Male ASD, social anxiety 2 Tomos 10 Male GDD, behaviors consistent with a social/communication disorder 2 Ieuan 9 Male Moderate learning difficulties, ADHD, social, emotional, and

behavioral difficulties 2 James 9 Male ASD, difficulties in social interactions and communication 2 Harri 10 Male Significant development delays, especially in language and social

interactions 2 Anna 9 Female Significant GDD, delayed expressive and receptive language skills 2 Lowri 9 Female Significant GDD, delayed expressive and receptive language skills 2 Cai 10 Male ASD, GDD, speech and language delay

Note. ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder; ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; GDD = Global Develop- mental Delay

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN6

positive and negative peer interactions and swearing, and the data are presented as a rate of behavior. Frequencies were recorded interval by interval. Momentary time sampling was used to measure off-task behavior and the interval was scored if one or more students engaged in the target behaviors. Data are presented as the per- centage of intervals in which the target behavior occurred. In Classroom 2, the duration of observations also was 15 to 30 min and ses- sions were divided into 10-s intervals. As in Classroom 1, all students were observed by scanning the class during each interval. Fre- quency recording was used to measure positive and negative peer interactions and the data are presented as a rate. Partial interval recording was used to measure verbal and physical disrup- tion; the interval was scored if one or more stu- dents engaged in the target behaviors. Data are presented as the percentage of intervals in which the target behavior occurred. We used slightly shorter intervals in Classroom 2 because we had fewer dependent variables being mea- sured via frequency recording, and practice observations revealed that we could use shorter intervals without compromising the reliability of the data. It is important to note that we specifically

did not target peer interactions in the rules of the game for either classroom. This tactic allowed us to more precisely evaluate the side effects (rather than the direct effects) of the GBG on students’ interactions with one another. Prior research would suggest that we could effectively alter peer interactions by arranging contingencies to reinforce or punish them; however, this type of demonstration would do little to address concerns about the unprogrammed outcomes of interdependent group contingencies.

Interobserver Agreement Interobserver agreement (IOA) for positive

and negative peer interactions and swearing was

calculated on an exact count per interval basis, dividing the number of intervals with 100% agreement by the total number of intervals and multiplying by 100. IOA for verbal disruption, physical disruption, and off-task behavior was calculated on an interval-by-interval basis, by dividing the number of intervals with agree- ment by the total number of intervals and mul- tiplying by 100. In Classroom 1, a second independent observer collected data during 32% of observations and the overall mean IOA was 99% for swearing, 89% for off-task behav- ior, 100% for positive peer interactions, and 98% for negative peer interactions. In Class- room 2, IOA data were collected during 35% of observations and the overall mean IOA was 94% for verbal disruption, 96% for physical disruption, 99% for positive peer interactions, and 99% for negative peer interactions.

Experimental Procedures Baseline. During baseline, teachers were

instructed to teach their classes and respond to problematic behaviors as they usually would. In Classroom 1, a school-wide points system was in place whereby, at the end of each lesson period, students were scored out of 5 on their behavior during that lesson (0 points indicated poor behavior and 5 points indicated excellent behavior). At the end of the week, points were tallied and any student who met a particular criterion earned free time on Friday afternoon. The points system remained in place through- out all phases of the study. No classroom man- agement system was in place in Classroom 2. Following the initial baseline phase, teachers

were trained by the first author to implement the GBG procedures described below. The training took place in the teachers’ classrooms and included a step-by-step description of the GBG, experimenter modeling of the proce- dures, and video modeling of the GBG being played in other classrooms. Training concluded with a general discussion with the teacher, in

7PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

which she could ask questions and make clarifi- cations about how to play the game. The first author also reminded the teacher of the behav- iors she had identified as most problematic dur- ing the initial observations, and the rules for the GBG were developed based on those dis- cussions. Teachers were allowed to develop additional rules (up to five rules in total) for behaviors that they did not initially identify. When considering the classroom rules, we spe- cifically asked the teacher not to address behav- iors related to interactions between peers, such as “use kind words” or “be nice to my class- mates.” Teachers in Classrooms 1 and 2 were trained separately and each training lasted approximately 2 hr. Good Behavior Game. Students were told

they would be using a new strategy in class in which they would have the opportunity to earn points for following a set of classroom expecta- tions. The teacher explained to students that they would be put into teams and everyone in each team would need to follow the classroom expectations for the team to earn points and receive rewards. In Classroom 1, the expecta- tions were: (a) stay on task, (b) only use mobile phones with permission, (c) stay in your work area, and (d) speak without swearing. In Class- room 2, the expectations were: (a) raise your hand to talk, (b) stay on task, (c) only use work words (on-topic talking only), (d) have quiet hands, and (e) look after school property. Classroom expectations were displayed on a poster at the front of the class and students were reminded of the rules before every GBG session. In Classroom 1, the teacher decided that the whole class would be one team, given that there were only five students in the class. In Classroom 2, the students typically sat in three groups prior to the GBG, and therefore the teacher opted to use the existing groupings as the GBG teams; two teams had three mem- bers and one team had two members. In both classrooms, the GBG began once the teacher finished providing instructions for the lesson’s

independent work, as this was reported to be the most problematic time. In a departure from original GBG proce-

dures, teachers awarded points for following rules instead of for violating them (Groves & Austin, 2017). During the lesson, each teacher had a MotivAider® timer that vibrated every 3 min, signaling an opportunity to award a point to any team who had been following the expectations since the previous vibration (i.e., during the previous 3-min interval). If a team did not earn a point in a given interval, the teacher reminded the students of the vio- lated rule and told them what they needed to do next time to earn a point (e.g., “Remember to speak without swearing to earn your next point!”). Given that we were interested in mea- suring naturally occurring peer interactions, teachers did not provide feedback regarding any peer interactions. Near the end of the lesson, the teacher added up the points for each team and any team who achieved at or above the cri- terion for that lesson received a reward. In Classroom 1, the teacher used a lottery draw to determine the point criterion for each session. Prior to the first GBG session, the teacher wrote numbers ranging from 1-8 on 15 slips of paper and placed them inside an opaque pouch. As each GBG was likely to last 30 min in each 45 min lesson, this equated to ten 3-min inter- vals, and therefore 10 opportunities to earn points. Therefore, the lottery was arranged so that most slips of paper had the number 8 (as this was deemed to be an acceptable crite- rion for winning). The numbers 5-7 were dis- played on two slips each, and there was one slip for each of the numbers 1-4. At the end of each game a student would select a slip of paper from the pouch and if the team (i.e., the class) had achieved the number of points on the slip then they received a reward. Rewards were selected by the teacher and included edi- ble items, such as a small brownie or flapjack. Given the population of Classroom 2, an

announced criterion for each game was deemed

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN8

more appropriate and less likely to cause confu- sion. The criterion was based on the estimated length of the lesson (and thus the opportunities to earn points) and was announced at the beginning of each game. The selected criterion for winning was typically 75-90% of the possi- ble points available (e.g., if there were 12 oppor- tunities to earn a point, the criterion would have been between 9 and 11 points). A “race- track” divided into 15 spaces was used as a scoreboard. Whenever a point was delivered, the team’s car would move one space up the track towards the finish line. The position of the finish line was adjustable and at the start of the game, the teacher placed the finish line on a particular space according to the point crite- rion for that lesson (e.g., if the criterion was 10 points, the finish line would be placed on the 10th space). Rewards were selected by the teacher and included time on the computer, time in the Lego area, or use of board games. Reward time was given during the last 5-10 minutes of the lesson.

Experimental Design The effects of the independent variable were

evaluated using an ABAB withdrawal design in both classrooms. Phase changes occurred once a stable pattern of responding was observed for the primary dependent variables or data paths were trending in the opposite direction of desired behavior change (e.g., an uptrend in negative comments).

Treatment Integrity During each GBG session, the primary data

collector used a 10-item checklist to record the degree to which the intervention was imple- mented as planned. Items on the checklist included such items as briefly reminding the students of the rules at the start of the game, awarding points accurately, providing appropri- ate feedback, and delivering the reward to win- ning teams. In Classroom 1, treatment integrity

averaged 92% (range, 80%-100%). Errors included not reminding students of the rules before the game started and not providing cor- rective feedback to a team when a point was not earned. In Classroom 2, treatment integrity averaged 97% (range, 90%-100%). The treat- ment integrity errors in Classroom 2 included not providing praise for rule following and not providing corrective feedback after points were not earned; however, this only happened on three occasions.

Social Validity The social validity of the goals, procedures,

and results (Wolf, 1978) were assessed at the end of the study. Each teacher completed a 14-item questionnaire using a 5-point Likert- type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) in which a higher score indicated greater agree- ment with the statement. Questions assessed such issues as whether they enjoyed playing the GBG, if they would recommend the GBG to other teachers, if they thought the group con- tingency was fair, and if they would continue playing the GBG in the future. Students also completed a questionnaire that was written in language that was appropriate to their ages or developmental levels. Students were asked to answer yes, maybe, or no to each question and could make additional comments if they wanted to do so. The first author read the questions to each student individually and recorded the student’s response. Questions assessed such issues as whether they enjoyed playing the GBG, if they enjoyed working in a team, if they thought working in teams was fair, and if they would like to continue playing the GBG in class.

RESULTS

Figure 1 displays the results for Classroom 1. In the pretreatment baseline, the students in Classroom 1 engaged in zero or near-zero rates of positive peer interactions (M = 0.01

9PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

responses per minute; range, 0–0.03), low to moderate rates of negative peer interactions (M = 0.26; range, 0.19–0.3), moderate rates of swearing (M = 0.45; range, 0.3–0.67), and a high level of off-task behavior (M = 66%; range, 53%–85%). Upon introduction of the GBG, a slight increase in positive peer interac- tions (M = 0.1; range, 0.05–0.15) and a clear decrease in negative peer interactions (M = 0.09; range, 0.04–0.15) was observed. A gradual decrease was observed in both swearing (M = 0.22; range, 0.04–0.48) and off-task behavior (M = 40%; range, 30%–56%). Dur- ing the third phase of the study, the GBG was withdrawn and positive peer interactions (M = 0.02; range, 0–0.06) and negative peer interactions (M = 0.32; range, 0.16–0.56) returned to pretreatment levels. Rates of swear- ing were highly variable and averaged 0.43 responses per minute (range, 0.18–0.72),

whereas off-task behavior averaged 63% (range, 56%–70%). The GBG was then reintroduced, and rates of positive peer interactions increased (M = 0.1; range, 0.04–0.16) and negative peer interactions decreased, often to near zero (M = 0.07; range, 0–0.25). During the last four sessions, students consistently engaged in more positive peer interactions than negative. A decrease was again observed in swearing (M = 0.14; range, 0.04–0.45) and off-task behavior (M = 11%; range, 3%–28%) upon reintroduction of the GBG, with behavior remaining consistently low throughout the final phase. Figure 2 displays the results for Classroom

2. During the pretreatment baseline, students engaged in low but variable rates of positive peer interactions (M = 0.07; range, 0–0.22), low to moderate rates of negative peer interac- tions (M = 0.23; range, 0.13–0.33), and

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

S w

earin g

per m in

Swearing

O ff

-t as

k be

h av

io r

(% o

f in

te rv

al s)

Off Task

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Negative Interaction

Positive Interaction

P ee

r in

te ra

ct io

n s

pe r

m in

Baseline GBGGBG Baseline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sessions

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Figure 1. Percentage of intervals with off-task behavior (top panel) and rate of swearing (top panel) and positive and negative interactions (bottom panel) for Classroom 1.

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN10

moderate levels of verbal and physical disrup- tion (M = 36%; range, 20%–47% and M = 27%; range, 23%–32%, respectively). The GBG was introduced in session 6 and an immediate increase was observed in rates of positive peer interactions (M = 0.26; range, 0.17–0.37). Rates of negative peer interactions reduced to zero or near zero, with an average of 0.02 responses per minute (range, 0–0.07). Additionally, verbal disruption reduced consid- erably to an average of 9% (range, 7%–11%) and physical disruption reduced to an average of 4% (range, 0%–12%). In the third phase, the GBG was withdrawn and positive peer interactions reduced to an average of 0.06 responses per minute (range, 0–0.13), while negative peer interactions increased to an aver- age of 0.3 responses per minute (range,

0.13–0.42). Disruption also increased to pre- treatment baseline levels, with verbal disruption averaging 40% (range, 34%–45%) and physical disruption averaging 28% (range, 21%–38%). During the last phase, the GBG was reintro- duced and positive peer interactions again increased to an average of 0.24 responses per minute (range, 0.13–0.31). With the exception of session 17, rates of negative peer interactions were 0 throughout the final phase of the GBG (M = 0.02; range, 0–0.09). In Classroom 2, stu- dents consistently engaged in more positive peer interactions than negative during all GBG sessions. Additionally, immediate reductions were observed in verbal and physical disruption upon reintroduction of the GBG (M = 7%; range, 1%–12% and M = 5%; range, 1%–9%, respectively).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

D is

ru pt

iv e

be h

av io

r (%

o f

in te

rv al

s)

Verbal Disruption

Physical Disruption

BaselineBaseline GBGGBG

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

P ee

r in

te ra

ct io

n s

pe r

m in

Negative Interaction

Positive Interaction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sessions

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 2. Percentage of intervals with disruptive behavior (top panel) and rate of positive and negative peer interac- tions (bottom panel) for Classroom 2.

11PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

Table 2 displays the results of the teachers’ social validity assessments. Both teachers said that they enjoyed playing the GBG and that they would continue using the intervention in the new school term. As well as reducing dis- ruption in their classroom, both teachers noted that the relationships of peers in their classes improved while playing the GBG. When asked to comment further, one teacher said that she felt the team aspect of the GBG made the stu- dents more aware of their interactions with peers. Both teachers strongly agreed that the team feature of the game was fair. Table 3 dis- plays the results of the participants’ social valid- ity assessments. Most students reported that they enjoyed playing the game, their behavior was better when they played the game, and that their ability to work in a team was improved.

However, when asked if it was fair that all members of the team had to follow the rules for the team to get a point, the responses were mixed. While most (69%) felt this was fair, some (23%) questioned why they should lose out on a point because of another student’s actions. Most participants reported that stu- dents got along better in class when they were playing the GBG, with one student in Class- room 2 commenting, “Others are kinder to me because they know I’m good at the game and always earn points for the team.”

DISCUSSION

The GBG resulted in substantial reductions in disruptive and off-task behavior in both classrooms. The primary aim of the current

Table 2 Results of Teacher’s Social Validity Questionnaires

Number of Responses

Statement Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly disagree

Prior to the game implementation, I felt a lot of teaching time was allocated to addressing the problematic behavior in the classroom.

1 0 1 0 0

I was sufficiently involved in the development of the game in my classroom.

2 0 0 0 0

The Good Behavior Game addresses the behaviors of concern in the classroom.

2 0 0 0 0

The students understood the targets of the game. 2 0 0 0 0 The game was easy to implement and I felt comfortable playing it.

2 0 0 0 0

Disruptive classroom behaviors decreased while playing the Good Behavior Game.

2 0 0 0 0

During the Good Behavior Game, less time was spent addressing disruptive behavior.

2 0 0 0 0

I enjoyed playing the Good Behavior Game in my classroom. 2 0 0 0 0 The students in my class enjoyed playing the Good Behavior Game.

1 1 0 0 0

The relationships of peers in my class improved while playing the Good Behavior Game.

2 0 0 0 0

I noticed improvements in the relationships of students in the class outside of the Good Behavior Game.

0 2 0 0 0

I will continue to implement the Good Behavior Game in my classroom.

2 0 0 0 0

I would recommend the Good Behavior Game to other teachers.

2 0 0 0 0

Having the students work in teams toward a common goal is a fair strategy to deal with problem behavior in the classroom.

2 0 0 0 0

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN12

study, however, was to analyze the effects of the GBG on naturally occurring positive and negative interactions among peers in primary and secondary classrooms. Results in both class- rooms showed that positive peer interactions increased and negative peer interactions decreased when the game was played, despite these interactions not being directly targeted by the game. Results of the social validity assess- ments indicated that most students felt the game was fair, and some reported getting along better with classmates when playing the GBG. These findings provide additional support for the effectiveness of the GBG with diverse learners, and more importantly, provide evi- dence to mitigate teacher concerns regarding the potential negative side effects of using team-based contingencies. Although anecdotal data (Packard, 1970;

Salend & Lamb, 1986) have suggested that the GBG produces more positive than negative peer interactions, systematic evaluations of these claims have been largely absent in the

literature. Our study was designed to fill that gap. Unlike previous GBG studies that have addressed peer interactions (e.g., Patrick et al., 1998; Salend et al., 1989), we did not specifi- cally target prosocial behavior as a rule of the game, and we specifically asked teachers not to provide feedback on pupils’ comments to one another (positive or negative) during any phase of the study. Our findings add empirical sup- port to the notion that the GBG facilitates pro- social and cooperative behavior among peers, despite the potential for reinforcer loss due to a peer’s behavior. To date, only one study has assessed natu-

rally occurring peer interactions when group contingencies were implemented in the class- room (Speltz et al., 1982). Our study extends this research by evaluating positive and negative peer interactions within the context of the GBG. Unlike Speltz et al., who found that only dependent group contingencies (in which the target student was identified) positively affected peer interactions, we found that an

Table 3 Results of Students’ Social Validity Questionnaires

Number of Responses

Statement Yes Maybe No

Did you enjoy playing the Good Behavior Game? 11 2 0 Are the rules of the game achievable for you? 8 5 0 Is your behavior better when you play the game? 11 2 0 Do you do more work when you play the game? 10 2 1 Do your classmates behave better when you play the game?

9 4 0

Everyone in your team has to follow the rules to earn points. Do you think this is fair?

9 1 3

Did playing the game help you learn to work in a team? 11 2 0 Do students in your class get along better when you’re playing the game?

10 1 2

Would you like to continue playing the game in class? 9 2 2 What did you like best about playing the game? Receiving a reward (9)

Earning points (1) I like the challenge (2) Other students being kinder to me (1)

What is your least favorite part of playing the game? Not earning a point (1) Other students losing the point for our team (1) Losing the game (1) Games are too long (3) Not being able to swear/use my phone (1) Nothing (6)

13PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

interdependent group contingency produced similar effects. One notable difference in our interdependent arrangement was that the behavior of each team member was clearly visi- ble to the group; in Speltz et al., students were unaware of who was responsible for the team’s losses or gains during the interdependent group contingency, which may have limited opportu- nities to engage in encouraging or congratula- tory interactions with their peers. These findings suggest that covert recording strategies during interdependent group contingencies (e.g., Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, & Morrison, 2016) may inhibit positive peer interactions. Future research should investigate this possibility. Like Groves and Austin (2017), we specifi-

cally targeted classrooms in which teachers had concerns about their students working in teams and the degree to which such arrangements were fair to students who behaved better than others. At the end of the study, however, both teachers strongly agreed that the GBG was a fair strategy for dealing with problem behavior. Further, when we asked students if it was fair to work in teams, 9 out of 13 students agreed it was fair. It is interesting to note that the three students who did not agree that the game was fair (one was unsure) also reported that they thought the game helped them to work better in a team and that students in the class got along better when the game was being played. These findings suggest that although students may not like when a team member causes a team loss, they also realize the benefits of being part of team. Taken together, our results may be helpful in addressing teachers’ concerns regarding students’ perceptions about the fairness of the GBG. Of the positive peer interactions observed

during the GBG, the majority included sup- portive or encouraging comments to others, often related to the rules of the game and aimed at the whole class (e.g., “You can do it, only 3 minutes to go!”, “Come on everyone,

we can do it this time!”). We also observed stu- dents congratulating one another for good work or rule following (e.g., “That’s a really good job on your drawing,” “Well done everyone, it’s been a good game”) and offering assistance to each other, particularly when they or the teacher identified a peer being off task. It is interesting to note that all (Classroom 1) or most (Classroom 2) students were identified by their teacher as having substantial social skills deficits and poor relationships with one another. Our results suggest that these students did have appropriate social skills in their reper- toires, but that the extant classroom environ- ments were not sufficient to evoke them. Importantly, these positive social interactions were likely maintained during the GBG via naturally occurring peer reinforcers. These results may shed light on the mechanisms underlying long-term effects of the GBG, such as reductions in antisocial behavior in adoles- cence (Kellam et al., 2008). Put simply, the GBG may evoke opportunities to practice important social skills and for those skills to contact natural contingencies of reinforcement from teachers and peers. Although the majority of students’ com-

ments about the game were positive, occasion- ally students engaged in negative interactions with their peers if a student broke a rule or lost a point for the team (e.g., “You’re an idiot”). However, these negative peer interactions were infrequent and did not differ in content from the negative comments observed during base- line. These findings suggest that although the GBG may evoke negative comments, it does not increase their frequency or intensity. Our findings raise important questions

regarding the conditions under which the GBG evokes positive peer interactions. Replicating these findings in larger classrooms, particularly in mainstream education, would bolster evi- dence of the positive impact of the GBG on naturally occurring peer interactions. Further, it would be interesting to evaluate the degree to

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN14

which the type of GBG (i.e., points earned for following rules or breaking rules) affects peer interactions. It is possible that the positive rein- forcement version of the game may be more likely to evoke positive interactions because the teacher serves as a model for those behaviors. Although the findings of the current study

are encouraging, a potential concern to researchers and practitioners alike is the imme- diate increase in target behaviors when the game was withdrawn. Anecdotally, we observed one of the students swearing in the corridor during break time, to which her peer responded, “It’s ok, we’re not playing the GBG right now.” Similar reversals have been observed in other GBG research (Barrish et al., 1969; Donaldson, Wiskow, & Soto, 2015; Flower, McKenna, Muething, Bryant, & Bry- ant, 2014b; Kleinman & Saigh, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2015; Tanol, Johnson, McComas, & Cote, 2010; Wright & McCurdy, 2011) and are sometimes necessary for demonstrating experimental control. However, given the potential for the GBG to produce a range of meaningful behavior changes, researchers may wish to do more to ensure the game continues after data collection has ended.

REFERENCES

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual contin- gencies for group consequences on disruptive behav- ior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba. 1969.2-119

Donaldson, J. M., Vollmer, T. R., Krous, T., Downs, S., & Berard, K. P. (2011). An evaluation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 605-609. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-605

Donaldson, J. M., Wiskow, K. M., & Soto, P. L. (2015). Immediate and distal effects of the good behavior game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 685- 689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.229

Elswick, S., & Casey, L. B. (2011). The good behavior game is no longer just an effective intervention for students: An examination of the reciprocal effects on teacher behaviors. Beyond Behavior, 21, 36-46.

Fishbein, J. E., & Wasik, B. H. (1981). Effect of the good behavior game on disruptive library behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 89-93. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-89

Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., & Vega Jr, R. (2014a). Effects of the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, 546-571. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314536781

Flower, A., McKenna, J., Muething, C. S., Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2014b). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on classwide off-task behavior in a high school basic algebra resource class- room. Behavior Modification, 38, 45-68. https://doi. org/10.1177/0145445513507574

Grandy, G. S., Madsen, C. H., & de Mersseman, L. M. (1973). The effects of individual and interdependent contingencies on inappropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 488-493. https://doi. org/10.1002/1520-6807(197310)10:4<488::AID- PITS2310100420>3.0.CO;2-F

Groves, E. A., & Austin, J. L. (2017). An evaluation of interdependent and independent group contingencies during the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 552-566. https://doi.org/10. 1002/jaba.393

Harris, V. W., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis of the “Good Behavior Game” to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba. 1973.6-405

Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J., Ialongo, N., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., & Wilcox, H. C. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S5-S28. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugacldep.2008.01.004

Kleinman, K. E., & Saigh, P. A. (2011). The effects of the good behavior game on the conduct of regular education New York City high school students. Behavior Modification, 35, 95-105. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0145445510392213

Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347. https://doi. org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341

Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing dis- ruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0002

McCurdy, B. L., Lannie, A. L., & Barnabas, E. (2009). Reducing disruptive behavior in an urban school cafe- teria: An extension of the good behavior game. Jour- nal of School Psychology, 47, 39-54. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jsp.2008.09.003

15PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

McLaughlin, T. F. (1974). A review of applications of group-contingency procedures used in behavior mod- ification in the regular classroom: Some recommenda- tions for school personnel. Psychological Reports, 35, 1299-1303. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.35.3. 1299

Mitchell, R. R., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A., Ford, W. B., & Sterling, H. E. (2015). The effects of the good behavior game with general-education high school students. School Psychology Review, 44, 191-207. doi: 10.17105/spr-14-0063.1

Packard, R. G. (1970). The control of “classroom atten- tion”: A group contingency for complex behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 13-28. https:// doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-13

Patrick, C. A., Ward, P., & Crouch, D. W. (1998). Effects of holding students accountable for social behaviors during volleyball games in elementary phys- ical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe. 17.2.143

Pennington, B., & McComas, J. J. (2017). Effects of the good behavior game across classroom contexts. Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 176-180. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jaba.357

Salend, S. J., & Lamb, E. A. (1986). Effectiveness of a group-managed interdependent contingency system. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 268-273. https://doi. org/10.2307/1510380

Salend, S. J., Reynolds, C. J., & Coyle, E. M. (1989). Individualizing the good behavior game across type and frequency of behavior with emotionally disturbed adolescents. Behavior Modification, 13, 108-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455890131007

Speltz, M. L., Shimamura, J. W., & McReynolds, W. T. (1982). Procedural variations in group contingencies: Effects on children’s academic and social behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-533

Tanol, G., Johnson, L., McComas, J., & Cote, E. (2010). Responding to rule violations or rule following: A comparison of two versions of the Good Behavior Game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 337-355. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jsp.2010.06.001

Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The Good Behavior Game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225- 253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503261165

Wahl, E., Hawkins, R. O., Haydon, T., Marsicano, R., & Morrison, J. Q. (2016). Comparing versions of the Good Behavior Game: Can a positive spin enhance effectiveness? Behavior Modification, 40, 493-517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644220

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjec- tive measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214. doi:0.1901/jaba.1978.11-203

Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2011). Class-wide posi- tive behavior support and group contingencies: Exam- ining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711421008

Received December 13, 2017 Final acceptance April 17, 2018 Action Editor, Claire St. Peter

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN16