Applied Sciences Week #2 Assignments
zanuyekeh
Readinsfor540w2Tingstrometal.2006.TheGoodBehaviorGame-1969-2002..pdf
10.1177/0145445503261165BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
The Good Behavior Game: 1969-2002
DANIEL H. TINGSTROM HEATHER E. STERLING-TURNER
University of Southern Mississippi
SUSAN M. WILCZYNSKI Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabilitation
The Good Behavior Game (GBG), a type of interdependent group-oriented contingency man- agement procedure, was first introduced in 1969 and has been used with overwhelming success in classrooms and other settings. Since its inception, the “game” has utilized team competition and peer influence combined with reinforcement procedures. It has been found to be popular, easy-to-use, time-efficient, and widely applicable and versatile. This review describes the game and its numerous variations and adaptations, as well as empirical findings specific to the variety of target behaviors and participants to which it has been applied. In addition, different types of reinforcers used, information on consumer acceptance, and issues related to implementation are considered.
Keywords: classroom management; contingency management; group contingency
Psychologists working in schools and related settings are often called on to assist educators in the development of contingency man- agement programs to decrease disruptive behavior and/or increase appropriate behavior. Teachers’referral concerns are sometimes directed toward the behaviors of more than one student or may even reflect problem behavior occurring classwide. In such cases it may be more efficient to design group-oriented contingencies because individual- ized contingencies may not be infeasible for teachers to manage simultaneously (Bushell, Wrobel, & Michaelis, 1968). Research has shown that group-oriented contingencies are at least as effective as
225
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Address correspondence to Daniel H. Tingstrom, University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Psychology, Box 5025, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5025.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, Vol. 30 No. 2, March 2006 225-253 DOI: 10.1177/0145445503261165 © 2006 Sage Publications
individual contingencies (Darch & Thorpe, 1977; Grandy, Madsen, & De Mersseman, 1973; Page & Edwards, 1978; Solomon & Tyne, 1979). In addition, group-oriented contingencies also have several practical advantages when compared to individual contingencies (Litow & Pumroy, 1975; Schmidt & Ulrich, 1969, Skinner, Skinner, & Sterling-Turner, 2002).
In general, there are three types of group-oriented contingencies: (a) independent, (b) dependent, and (c) interdependent (Litow & Pumroy, 1975). Independent group contingencies involve the same target behaviors, consequences, and criteria for all group members, but access to reinforcement for each group member is based on each member’s performance (e.g., “Whoever makes a 90% or higher on the end of chapter math test will be able to pick a prize from the treasure chest”). Unlike independent group contingencies that place the same response requirement on individual students’access to reinforcement, the remaining two types of group contingencies deliver consequences to the entire group (i.e., all or none of the group has access to the rein- forcer). Dependent group contingencies allow group access to rein- forcement based on the behavior or performance of one or several stu- dents (e.g., “If Meg, Steve, and Linda stay on their mats and don’t get up, then we will have a special snack after nap time”). Like dependent group contingencies, interdependent group contingencies allow all of the group access to the same consequence, but require some collective level of group behavior or performance to receive reinforcement (“If the average grade on this weekend’s homework assignment is 85% or higher, we all will watch a movie Monday afternoon”). Although some individual students may not meet the criterion in this latter arrangement, all students are provided access to the reinforcer as long as the group meets the criterion.
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a type of interdependent group contingency that has particular applicability to the classroom. In the original study (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), a fourth-grade class was divided into two teams. The class was informed that they would play a game in which team members would earn marks (which were prominently displayed on the blackboard) against their team for talk- ing out or being out-of-seat. The team with the fewest marks, or both teams if neither team received more than 5 marks, would win the game
226 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
and receive special privileges (e.g., wearing victory tags, stars on a winner’s chart, lining up first for lunch, 30 min of free time at end of the day). The game reduced talking and out-of-seat behavior, and was popular with students and school officials. Since its original incep- tion, the GBG has been adapted for use in a variety of academic set- tings to manage student behavior. The purpose of this article is to review both theoretical and implementation issues associated with the GBG with reference to the extant GBG literature base (see Table 1 for a list of empirical investigations of the GBG).
RESEARCH SUPPORT
The GBG has been shown to be effective in not only its original form but numerous modifications as well. Typically, effectiveness has been evaluated using some type of single-case research design meth- odology in which performance or behavioral data from the group or class are aggregated and evaluated as would occur with data from a single individual. The majority of designs have included phase change (e.g., ABAB, etc.; Bostow & Geiger, 1976; Darch & Thorpe, 1977; Darveaux, 1984; Davies & White, 2000; Fishbein & Wasik, 1981; Gresham & Gresham, 1982; Hegerle, Kesecker, & Couch, 1979; Lutzker & White-Blackburn, 1979; Medland & Stachnik, 1972; Robertshaw & Hiebert, 1973; Saigh & Umar, 1983; Salend, Reynolds, & Coyle, 1989), multiple baseline (e.g., Johnson, Turner, & Konarski, 1978; Maloney & Hopkins, 1973; Patrick, Ward, & Crouch, 1998; Swain, Allard, & Holborn, 1982; Swiezy, Matson, & Box, 1992), or combinations of the two designs (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969; Grandy et al., 1973; Harris & Sherman, 1973). Thus, a wealth of research has been conducted on the GBG, using strong research designs.
A few studies also have used a changing criterion design by gradu- ally decreasing the allowable point accumulation during treatment phase(s) (Hegerle et al., 1979; Salend et al., 1989). Conversely, Harris and Sherman (1973) conducted a component analysis in which they systematically altered the allowable number of marks from 8 to 4, back to 8, and finally back to 4 again. These few studies employing a
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 227
(text continues on p. 238)
228
T A
B L
E 1
Su m
m ar
y of
E m
pi ri
ca l I
nv es
ti ga
ti on
s of
t he
G oo
d B
eh av
io r
G am
e (1
96 9-
20 02
)
A ut
ho r(
s) Ye
ar Pa
rt ic
ip an
ts Ta
rg et
B eh
av io
rs D
es ig
n R
ei nf
or ce
rs M
aj or
R es
ul ts
/C on
cl us
io ns
B ar
ri sh
, H . H
., Sa
un de
rs , M
., W
ol f,
M . W
.
19 69
R eg
ul ar
f ou
rt h-
gr ad
e cl
as s
O ut
-o f-
se at
, ta
lk in
g- ou
t C
om bi
ne d
m ul
tip le
ba se
lin e
an d
w ith
- dr
aw al
a cr
os s
re ad
in g
an d
m at
h pe
ri od
s
V ic
to ry
ta gs
; s ta
r on
w in
ne r’
s ch
ar t;
lin e
up fi
rs t f
or lu
nc h;
30 -m
in f
re e
tim e;
w ee
kl y
bo nu
s
G am
e si
gn if
ic an
ts r
ed uc
ed ta
rg et
b eh
av io
rs ; g
am e
w as
po pu
la r
w ith
s tu
de nt
s an
d sc
ho ol
p er
so nn
el
M ed
la nd
, M . B
., St
ac hn
ik , T
. J .
19 72
Fi ft
h- gr
ad e
re ad
in g
cl as
s O
ut -o
f- se
at ,
ta lk
in g-
ou t,
di sr
up tiv
e be
ha vi
or
6 ph
as es
: B as
el in
e 1 ;
G am
e 1 ; B
as e-
lin e 2
; R ul
es o
nl y;
R ul
es +
L ig
ht s;
G am
e 2
3 m
in o
f ex
tr a
m or
ni ng
re ce
ss ; e
xt ra
a ct
iv ity
tim e
as w
ee kl
y bo
- nu
s
G am
e w
as v
er y
ef fe
ct iv
e in
re du
ci ng
ta rg
et b
eh av
io rs
; af
te r
as so
ci at
io n
w ith
ga m
e, c
om po
ne nt
s of
R ul
es a
nd R
ul es
+ L
ig ht
s ef
fe ct
iv el
y re
du ce
d ta
rg et
be ha
vi or
s H
ar ri
s, V
. W .,
Sh er
m an
, J . A
. 19
73 Fi
ft h-
a nd
s ix
th -
gr ad
e cl
as se
s Ta
lk in
g an
d ou
t- of
- se
at C
om bi
ne d
ph as
e ch
an ge
s, m
ul tip
le ba
se lin
e ac
ro ss
pe ri
od s,
a nd
m ul
tie le
m en
t w ith
ch an
gi ng
c ri
te ri
on
L ea
ve s
ch oo
l 1 0
m in
ea rl
y at
e nd
o f
da y
Im po
rt an
t c om
po ne
nt s:
c on
- se
qu en
ce s,
c ri
te ri
a se
tti ng
, an
d fo
rm at
io n
of te
am s;
fe ed
ba ck
n ot
f ou
nd to
b e
im po
rt an
t w he
n ga
m e
pl ay
ed w
ith c
on se
qu en
ce s
R ob
er ts
ha w
, C . S
., H
ie be
rt , H
. D .
19 73
Fi rs
t- gr
ad e
cl as
s an
d on
e ta
rg et
st ud
en t
A tte
nt io
n- to
-t as
k (t
ar ge
t s tu
de nt
); se
at w
or k
fo r
cl as
s
A B
p ha
se c
ha ng
e C
ho ic
e of
f re
e- tim
e ac
- tiv
iti es
In at
te nt
iv e
be ha
vi or
d e-
cr ea
se d
in ta
rg et
s tu
de nt
; se
at w
or k
co m
pl et
io n
in -
cr ea
se d
fo r
cl as
s
229
M al
on ey
, K . B
., H
op ki
ns , B
. L .
19 73
Fo ur
th , f
if th
, a nd
si xt
h gr
ad er
s N
um be
r of
d if
fe r -
en t a
dj ec
tiv es
, ac
tio n
ve rb
s, a
nd di
ff er
en t s
en -
te nc
e be
gi nn
in gs
M ul
tip le
b as
el in
e ac
ro ss
p ar
ts o
f sp
ee ch
Po in
ts e
ar ne
d w
ri tin
g ex
ch an
ge d
fo r
ca nd
y an
d fo
r go
in g
to r
e - ce
ss 5
m in
e ar
ly
In cr
ea se
d us
ag e
of p
ar ts
o f
sp ee
ch a
nd r
at in
gs o
f cr
e - at
iv ity
in w
ri tin
g
B os
to w
, D .,
G ei
ge r,
O . G
. 19
76 Se
co nd
-g ra
de c
la ss
O ut
-o f-
se at
, t al
ki ng
ou t,
la ck
o f
at -
te nt
io n
to a
s - si
gn ed
ta sk
, bo
th er
in g
on e’
s ne
ig hb
or
A B
A B
p ha
se c
ha ng
e L
in e
up fi
rs t f
or lu
nc h
an d
a co
ok ie
G am
e si
gn if
ic an
tly r
ed uc
ed ru
le v
io la
tio ns
d ur
in g
in te
r - ve
nt io
n ph
as es
; i nd
ic at
io ns
su gg
es te
d th
at s
tu de
nt s
en -
jo ye
d th
e ga
m e
an d
th e
te ac
he r
ap pr
ov ed
o f
it as
w el
l D
ar ch
, C . B
., T
ho rp
e, H
. W .
19 77
T he
1 0
“m os
t d ev
i- an
t” s
tu de
nt s
in a
fo ur
th -g
ra de
cl as
sr oo
m
O n-
ta sk
A B
A C
A p
ha se
ch an
ge Po
si tiv
e gr
ou p
at te
nt io
n fr
om p
ri nc
ip al
f or
w in
ni ng
te am
d ur
in g
B p
ha se
; p os
iti ve
in -
di vi
du al
a tte
nt io
n fr
om p
ri nc
ip al
in C
ph as
e
B ot
h th
e gr
ou p
“p ri
nc ip
al ga
m e”
a nd
in di
vi du
al a
t- te
nt io
n fr
om p
ri nc
ip al
in -
cr ea
se d
on -t
as k
be ha
vi or
; gr
ou p
pr oc
ed ur
e so
m ew
ha t
m or
e ef
fe ct
iv e
th an
in di
- vi
du al
iz ed
c on
se qu
en ce
W ar
ne r,
S. P
., M
ill er
, F . D
., C
oh en
, M . W
.
19 77
Fo ur
th -
an d
fi ft
h- gr
ad e
cl as
se s
Ta lk
in g-
ou t,
ou t-
of -
se at
C ou
nt er
ba la
nc ed
d e-
si gn
N ot
s pe
ci fi
ed G
am e
re du
ce d
ta rg
et b
eh av
- io
rs s
ig ni
fi ca
nt ly
b et
te r
th an
“ th
e te
ac he
r- at
te nt
io n
m et
ho d,
” al
th ou
gh b
ot h
m et
ho ds
w er
e ef
fe ct
iv e;
te ac
he rs
p re
fe rr
ed th
e ga
m e
to th
e te
ac he
r- at
te nt
io n
m et
ho d,
p re
su m
ab ly
b e-
ca us
e it
re qu
ir ed
le ss
e ff
or t
(c on
ti nu
ed )
230
Jo hn
so n,
M . R
., T
ur ne
r, P.
F .,
K on
ar sk
i, E
. A .
19 78
T hi
rd a
nd f
ou rt
h gr
ad er
s in
“ tr
an si
- tio
na l c
la ss
es ”
A pp
ro pr
ia te
b eh
av -
io r,
di sr
up tiv
e be
ha vi
or , a
nd te
ac he
r at
te nt
io n
M ul
tip le
b as
el in
e ac
ro ss
s et
tin gs
, pa
rt ic
ip an
ts , a
nd tim
e
Sp ec
ia l t
re at
s (a
pp le
s, gr
ap es
, p ea
nu ts
), pr
iv ile
ge s
(g oi
ng to
lu nc
h ea
rl y,
fi rs
t i n
lin e
fo r
re ce
ss , e
tc .)
, 10
-m in
f re
e pe
ri od
D is
ru pt
iv e
be ha
vi or
a nd
te ac
he r
at te
nt io
n to
it d
e - cl
in ed
“ sh
ar pl
y” in
th e
ga m
e an
d te
ac he
r at
te nt
io n
co nd
iti on
s; th
es e
ef fe
ct s
w er
e no
t w el
l m ai
nt ai
ne d
at 7
1/ 2-
w ee
k fo
llo w
-u p
L ut
zk er
, J . R
., W
hi te
- B
la ck
bu rn
, G .
19 79
St at
e ho
sp ita
l r es
i- de
nt s
W or
k ou
tp ut
B as
el in
e 1 , f
ee db
ac k,
ba se
lin e 2
, f ee
d- ba
ck +
g am
e, ba
se lin
e 3 , f
ee d-
ba ck
+ g
am e
C an
dy a
nd e
ar ly
w or
k te
rm in
at io
n Fe
ed ba
ck a
lo ne
in cr
ea se
d pr
od uc
tiv ity
s lig
ht ly
o ve
r ba
se lin
e 1 . G
am e
+ f
ee d-
ba ck
in cr
ea se
d pr
od uc
tiv ity
10 4%
o ve
r ba
se lin
e 2 an
d 64
% o
ve r
ba se
lin e 3
H eg
er le
, D . R
., K
es ec
ke r,
M . P
., C
ou ch
, J . V
.
19 79
Se lf
-c on
ta in
ed cl
as sr
oo m
( gr
ad e
un sp
ec if
ie d)
Ta lk
in g-
ou t,
ou t-
of -
se at
A B
w ith
c ha
ng in
g cr
ite ri
on N
am es
o n
vi ct
or y
ch ar
t, ca
nd y,
p re
t- ze
ls , c
oo ki
es , a
nd ex
tr a
re ce
ss ti
m e
G am
e si
gn if
ic an
tly r
ed uc
ed bo
th ta
rg et
b eh
av io
rs ; b
ot h
te am
s al
w ay
s w
on
aH ub
er , H
. 19
79 Fo
ur th
-g ra
de s
um -
m er
r em
ed ia
l cl
as s
A gg
re ss
iv e
be ha
v- io
r, ta
lk in
g, o
ut -
of -s
ea t
N ot
in a
bs tr
ac t
N ot
in a
bs tr
ac t
H ig
h fr
eq ue
nc y
of d
is ru
pt iv
e be
ha vi
or r
ed uc
ed s
ig ni
fi- ca
nt ly
; s ee
n by
a ut
ho r
as on
ly a
te m
po ra
ry s
ol ut
io n
T A
B L
E 1
(c on
ti nu
ed )
A ut
ho r(
s) Ye
ar Pa
rt ic
ip an
ts Ta
rg et
B eh
av io
rs D
es ig
n R
ei nf
or ce
rs M
aj or
R es
ul ts
/C on
cl us
io ns
231
Fi sh
be in
, J . E
., W
as ik
, B . H
. 19
81 Fo
ur th
-g ra
de c
la ss
Ta sk
-r el
ev an
t b e -
ha vi
or , o
ff -t
as k,
di sr
up tiv
e be
ha v -
io r
B as
el in
e, f
ul l g
am e,
ga m
e w
ith n
o re
- in
fo rc
em en
t, fu
ll ga
m e
Sp ec
ia l a
ct iv
ity Fu
ll ga
m e
w ith
r ei
nf or
ce m
en t
in cr
ea se
d ta
sk -r
el ev
an t b
e - ha
vi or
a nd
d ec
re as
ed d
is -
ru pt
iv e
be ha
vi or
; g am
e w
ith ou
t r ei
nf or
ce m
en t n
ot ef
fe ct
iv e;
s om
e ge
ne ra
liz a -
tio n
to c
la ss
ro om
G re
sh am
, F . M
., G
re sh
am , G
. N .
19 82
6- to
1 0-
ye ar
-o ld
ch ild
re n
w ith
m ild
m en
ta l r
et ar
- da
tio n
in s
el f-
co nt
ai ne
d cl
as s-
ro om
D is
ru pt
iv e
be ha
vi or
A B
C D
A B
C D
w ith
- dr
aw al
d es
ig n
(w ith
a r
ep ea
t ea
ch o
f ba
se lin
e, in
te rd
ep en
de nt
[g oo
d be
ha vi
or ga
m e]
, d ep
en de
nt ,
an d
in de
pe nd
en t
gr ou
p co
nt in
ge n-
ci es
)
Pa rt
y, p
en ci
ls , f
re e
tim e
In te
rd ep
en de
nt (
go od
b eh
av -
io r
ga m
e) a
nd d
ep en
de nt
gr ou
p co
nt in
ge nc
ie s
re -
su lte
d in
g re
at es
t d ec
re as
e in
d is
ru pt
iv e
be ha
vi or
. A u-
th or
s sp
ec ul
at ed
th at
g ro
up co
op er
at io
n an
d gr
ou p
co n-
tr ol
w er
e re
sp on
si bl
e fo
r fi
nd in
gs
Sw ai
n, J
. J .,
A lla
rd , G
. B .,
H ol
bo rn
, S . W
.
19 82
Fi rs
t a nd
s ec
on d
gr ad
er s
O ra
l h yg
ie ne
s ki
lls M
ul tip
le b
as el
in e
ac ro
ss c
la ss
es w
ith 9
-m on
th f
ol -
lo w
-u p
“S cr
at ch
n ’S
ni ff
” st
ic ke
rs , n
am es
po st
ed o
n “S
no op
y” w
in ne
r’ s
po st
er ,
pr ai
se a
nd v
er ba
l fe
ed ba
ck
O ra
l h yg
ie ne
s co
re s
im pr
ov ed
fo r
bo th
g ra
de s
as a
r es
ul t
of th
e ga
m e,
to ot
hb ru
sh in
g ef
fe ct
iv en
es s
w as
m ai
n- ta
in ed
a t f
ol lo
w -u
p
(c on
ti nu
ed )
232
Sa ig
h, P
. A .,
U m
ar , A
. M .
19 83
Se co
nd -g
ra de
c la
ss -
ro om
in c
en tr
al Su
da n
Ta lk
in g
or v
er ba
l di
sr up
tio n,
a g -
gr es
si on
o r
ph ys
- ic
al d
is ru
pt io
n, ou
t- of
-s ea
t
A B
A B
p ha
se c
ha ng
e D
ai ly
w in
ne rs
r ec
ei ve
d vi
ct or
y ta
gs a
nd s
ta rs
ne xt
to n
am es
o n
w in
ne r’
s ch
ar t,
an d
ad di
tio na
l f re
e tim
e; w
ee kl
y w
in ne
rs r
e - ce
iv ed
c om
m en
da -
tio n
le tte
r
T he
g am
e si
gn if
ic an
tly r
e - du
ce d
ta rg
et b
eh av
io rs
; s tu
- de
nt s,
p ar
en ts
, t ea
ch er
s, an
d th
e pr
in ci
pa l w
ith th
e ga
m e
an d
its r
es ul
ts ; c
ro ss
- cu
ltu ra
l u til
ity o
f th
e ga
m e
w as
s up
po rt
ed
D ar
ve au
x, D
. X .
19 84
Tw o
se co
nd -g
ra de
bo ys
w ith
b eh
av -
io ra
l d if
fi cu
lti es
D is
ru pt
iv e
be ha
v- io
r, as
si gn
m en
t co
m pl
et io
n, a
nd ac
tiv e
pa rt
ic ip
a- tio
n
A B
A B
p ha
se c
ha ng
e St
or y-
tim e,
f re
e tim
e, an
d ca
nd y;
m er
its ea
rn ed
f or
a ss
ig n-
m en
ts c
om pl
et ed
at 7
5% a
cc ur
ac y
an d
fo r
ac tiv
e pa
rt ic
ip at
io n—
on e
po in
t e ra
se d
fr om
bo ar
d fo
r ev
er y
fiv e
m er
its e
ar ne
d by
te am
T he
g oo
d be
ha vi
or g
am e
pl us
m er
it re
su lte
d in
m ar
ke d
re du
ct io
ns o
f di
sr up
tiv e
be -
ha vi
or o
f ta
rg et
s tu
de nt
s as
w el
l a s
co ns
id er
ab le
in -
cr ea
se s
in a
ss ig
nm en
t c om
- pl
et io
n; a
ss ig
nm en
t c om
- pl
et io
n al
so in
cr ea
se d
fo r
cl as
s bu
t t o
le ss
er e
xt en
t th
an f
or ta
rg et
s tu
de nt
s
K os
ie c,
L . E
., C
ze rn
ic ki
, M . R
., M
cL au
gh lin
, T . F
.
19 86
Fo ur
th -
an d
si xt
h- gr
ad e
cl as
sr oo
m s
in B
ri tis
h C
ol um
bi a
In ap
pr op
ri at
e ve
r- ba
liz at
io ns
C ou
nt er
ba la
nc ed
m ul
tip le
b as
el in
e ac
ro ss
ti m
es o
f da
y an
d co
nd i-
tio ns
( ga
m e
an d
ga m
e +
c an
dy )
In th
e G
am e
O nl
y co
n- di
tio n,
r ei
nf or
ce rs
w er
e pa
tte rn
ed a
ft er
B ar
ri sh
e t a
l. (1
96 9)
; ca
nd y
w as
a dd
ed in
th e
G am
e +
C an
dy co
nd iti
on
T he
g am
e re
du ce
d ve
rb al
iz a-
tio ns
in b
ot h
cl as
sr oo
m s;
ca nd
y di
d no
t i nc
re as
e ef
- fe
ct iv
en es
s of
g am
e, e
ve n
th ou
gh s
tu de
nt s
in di
ca te
d th
ey e
nj oy
ed th
e ga
m e
m or
e w
he n
ca nd
y w
as a
ls o
us ed
T A
B L
E 1
(c on
ti nu
ed )
A ut
ho r(
s) Ye
ar Pa
rt ic
ip an
ts Ta
rg et
B eh
av io
rs D
es ig
n R
ei nf
or ce
rs M
aj or
R es
ul ts
/C on
cl us
io ns
233
Ph ill
ip s,
D .,
C hr
is tie
, F .
19 86
12 -
to 1
3- ye
ar -o
ld “s
lo w
le ar
ni ng
, di
sr up
tiv e”
s tu
- de
nt s
in U
ni te
d K
in gd
om
O ff
-t as
k A
B s
im pl
e ph
as e
ch an
ge Fr
ee ti
m e
A ta
rg et
s tu
de nt
’s o
ff -t
as k
be -
ha vi
or d
ec re
as ed
f ro
m a
m ea
n of
2 3
du ri
ng b
as el
in e
to a
m ea
n of
1 d
ur in
g th
e ga
m e
Sa le
nd , S
. J .,
R ey
no ld
s, C
. J .,
C oy
le , E
. M .
19 89
T hr
ee c
la ss
es o
f 15
- to
1 7-
ye ar
-o ld
st ud
en ts
w ith
em ot
io na
l d is
tu r -
ba nc
e
In ap
pr op
ri at
e ve
r - ba
liz at
io ns
, to
uc hi
ng , n
eg a -
tiv e
co m
m en
ts ,
cu rs
in g,
d ru
m -
m in
g
A B
A B
w ith
in cr
ea s -
in gl
y m
or e
st ri
n - ge
nt c
ri te
ri a
Fr es
h fr
ui t,
su ga
rl es
s gu
m , l
un ch
w ith
s ta
ff m
em be
r, po
si tiv
e no
te to
d or
m c
ou n -
se lo
r
Su bs
ta nt
ia l d
ec re
as es
in in
ap -
pr op
ri at
e be
ha vi
or s
w er
e fo
un d
fo r
ea ch
te am
w ith
in ea
ch c
la ss
w he
n in
te rv
en -
tio n
w as
in tr
od uc
ed ta
rg et
- in
g th
os e
sp ec
if ic
b eh
av -
io rs
f or
e ac
h re
sp ec
tiv e
te am
; s tu
de nt
s an
d te
ac he
rs pr
ef er
re d
th e
ga m
e to
p re
- vi
ou s
m an
ag em
en t s
tr at
e- gi
es ; g
am e
w as
s uc
ce ss
fu l
de sp
ite le
ss th
an id
ea l p
ro -
ce du
ra l i
nt eg
ri ty
W eb
st er
, J . B
. 19
89 9-
a nd
1 0-
ye ar
-o ld
s w
ith s
oc ia
l a nd
ac ad
em ic
d if
fi cu
l- tie
s in
a s
pe ci
al da
y sc
ho ol
f or
“m al
ad ju
st ed
p u-
pi ls
”
Q ui
et v
oi ce
, s ta
y in
se at
, “ do
y ou
r w
or k”
N o
sy st
em at
ic d
e- si
gn r
ep or
te d
St ar
s (p
lu se
s) e
ar ne
d on
c ha
rt f
or f
ol lo
w -
in g
ru le
s; r
ed f
la gs
(m in
us es
; r es
po ns
e co
st )
fo r
ru le
v io
la -
tio ns
; s ta
rs e
x- ch
an ge
d fo
r “s
ur -
pr is
e in
te ac
he r’
s ba
g”
N o
sp ec
if ic
d at
a re
po rt
ed ;
cl as
s re
po rt
ed to
d o
“w el
l” w
ith in
a n
ho ur
(c on
ti nu
ed )
234
Sw ie
zy , N
. B .,
M at
so n,
J . L
., B
ox , P
.
19 92
Pr es
ch oo
le rs
C om
pl ia
nc e
an d
no nc
om pl
ia nc
e M
ul tip
le b
as el
in e
w ith
in p
ai rs
o f
st ud
en ts
a nd
ac ro
ss th
er ap
is ts
Sm ile
y fa
ce o
r di
no sa
ur (i
.e .,
to ke
ns )
on f
el t
bo ar
d us
ed f
or g
ra -
ha m
c ra
ck er
s or
co ok
ie ; b
on us
p oi
nt s
an d
ex tr
a re
w ar
ds ;
co m
pl ia
nc e
pr ai
se d,
no nc
om pl
ia nc
e ig
- no
re d
Pr oc
ed ur
es in
cr ea
se d
co m
pl i -
an ce
f or
b ot
h pa
ir s
of p
re -
sc ho
ol er
s; p
ai rs
u se
d as
a “t
ea m
” in
st ea
d of
e nt
ir e
cl as
s; n
o be
tw ee
n- te
am co
m pe
tit io
n
D ol
an , L
. J .,
K el
la m
, S . G
., B
ro w
n, C
. H .,
W er
th am
er -
L ar
ss on
, L .,
R eb
ok , G
. W .,
M ay
er , L
. S .,
L au
do lf
f, J
., T
ur kk
an , J
. S .,
Fo rd
, C .,
W he
el er
, L .
19 93
Fi rs
t g ra
de rs
f ro
m ei
gh t c
la ss
ro om
s V
er ba
l d is
ru pt
io n,
ph ys
ic al
d is
ru p-
tio n,
o ut
-o f-
se at
, no
nc om
pl ia
nc e
G ro
up r
ep ea
te d
m ea
su re
s de
si gn
w ith
in te
rn al
a nd
ex te
rn al
c on
tr ol
gr ou
ps
In iti
al ly
, w in
ni ng
te am
(s )
ea rn
ed ta
ng i-
bl e
re w
ar ds
( st
ic ke
rs ,
er as
er s)
; g ra
du al
ly sh
if te
d to
e ar
ni ng
r e-
w ar
di ng
a ct
iv ity
( ex
- tr
a re
ce ss
, c la
ss p
ri v-
ile ge
s) ; w
ee kl
y w
in -
ne rs
w er
e de
si gn
at ed
an d
re ce
iv ed
s pe
ci al
re w
ar d
on F
ri da
y
Te ac
he r
ra tin
gs o
f ag
gr es
si on
an d
sh y
be ha
vi or
f or
b ot
h bo
ys a
nd g
ir ls
w ho
p ar
tic i-
pa te
d in
th e
ga m
e w
er e
si g-
ni fi
ca nt
ly lo
w er
in s
pr in
g of
fi rs
t g ra
de c
om pa
re d
to fa
ll, a
nd g
re at
er r
ed uc
tio ns
in r
at in
gs o
f ag
gr es
si on
m ay
h av
e oc
cu rr
ed f
or c
hi l-
dr en
w ith
h ig
he r
ra tin
gs in
th e
fa ll;
p ee
r no
m in
at io
ns of
a gg
re ss
io n
w er
e lo
w er
in sp
ri ng
o nl
y fo
r bo
ys
T A
B L
E 1
(c on
ti nu
ed )
A ut
ho r(
s) Ye
ar Pa
rt ic
ip an
ts Ta
rg et
B eh
av io
rs D
es ig
n R
ei nf
or ce
rs M
aj or
R es
ul ts
/C on
cl us
io ns
235
K el
la m
, S . G
., R
eb ok
, G . W
., Ia
lo ng
o, N
., M
ay er
, L . S
.
19 94
A c
oh or
t o f
fi rs
t gr
ad er
s ac
ro ss
ei gh
t c la
ss ro
om s,
w ho
r ec
ei ve
d th
e G
oo d
B eh
av io
r G
am e
in fi
rs t a
nd se
co nd
g ra
de s,
w er
e fo
llo w
ed th
ro ug
h si
xt h
gr ad
e
V er
ba l d
is ru
pt io
n, ph
ys ic
al d
is ru
p - tio
n, o
ut -o
f- se
at ,
no nc
om pl
ia nc
e
G ro
up r
ep ea
te d
m ea
su re
s lo
ng itu
- di
na l p
ar al
le l d
e - si
gn w
ith in
te rn
al an
d ex
te rn
al c
on -
tr ol
g ro
up s
In iti
al ly
, w in
ni ng
te am
(s )
ea rn
ed ta
ng i -
bl e
re w
ar ds
( st
ic ke
rs ,
er as
er s)
; g ra
du al
ly sh
if te
d to
e ar
ni ng
re w
ar di
ng a
ct iv
ity (e
xt ra
r ec
es s,
c la
ss pr
iv ile
ge s)
; w ee
kl y
w in
ne rs
w er
e de
si g -
na te
d an
d re
ce iv
ed sp
ec ia
l r ew
ar d
on Fr
id ay
B oy
s w
ho p
ar tic
ip at
ed in
th e
ga m
e in
fi rs
t a nd
s ec
on d
gr ad
es , a
nd w
ho h
ad h
ig he
r ra
tin gs
o f
ag gr
es si
on b
y th
ei r
te ac
he rs
a t t
he b
eg in
- ni
ng o
f fi
rs t g
ra de
, h ad
s ig
- ni
fi ca
nt ly
a nd
s te
ad ily
d e -
cr ea
si ng
te ac
he r
ra tin
gs o
f ag
gr es
si on
in f
ou rt
h an
d fi
ft h
gr ad
es a
nd in
to m
id dl
e sc
ho ol
; h ow
ev er
, b oy
s w
ho w
er e
no t a
gg re
ss iv
e in
fi rs
t gr
ad e
w er
e no
t “ pr
ot ec
te d”
by th
e ga
m e
fr om
la te
r ag
- gr
es si
on T
in gs
tr om
, D . H
. 19
94 R
eg ul
ar a
nd s
pe ci
al ed
uc at
io n
te ac
h- er
s (K
-9 )
R at
in gs
o f
ac ce
pt -
ab ili
ty G
ro up
fa ct
or ia
l de
si gn
s in
tw o
ex pe
ri m
en ts
— pr
et re
at m
en t a
na -
lo g
in ve
st ig
at io
ns
N ot
a pp
lic ab
le G
am e
ra te
d as
a cc
ep ta
bl e
as co
m m
on ly
u se
d po
si tiv
e an
d re
du ct
iv e
in di
vi du
al ly
ba se
d pr
oc ed
ur es
Pa tr
ic k,
C . A
., W
ar d,
P .,
C ro
uc h,
D . W
.
19 98
Fo ur
th -,
fi ft
h- , a
nd si
xt h-
gr ad
e ph
ys i-
ca l e
du ca
tio n
cl as
se s
A pp
ro pr
ia te
a nd
in -
ap pr
op ri
at e
so -
ci al
b eh
av io
rs ,
vo lle
yb al
l s ki
lls
M ul
tip le
b as
el in
e ac
ro ss
c la
ss es
Pu bl
ic p
os tin
g of
p oi
nt s
on w
al l p
os te
r, ex
tr a
ga m
e tim
e, s
pe ci
al en
d- of
-u ni
t l un
ch -
tim e
ga m
e
G am
e re
du ce
d in
ap pr
op ri
at e
so ci
al b
eh av
io rs
a nd
in -
cr ea
se d
ap pr
op ri
at e
so ci
al be
ha vi
or s
ac ro
ss c
la ss
es ,
bu t h
ad n
o ef
fe ct
o n
vo lle
y- ba
ll sk
ill s
(c on
ti nu
ed )
236
K el
la m
, S . G
., L
in g,
X .,
M er
is ca
, R .,
B ro
w n,
C . H
., Ia
lo ng
o, N
.
19 98
A c
oh or
t o f
fi rs
t gr
ad er
s ac
ro ss
ei gh
t c la
ss ro
om s,
w ho
r ec
ei ve
d th
e G
oo d
B eh
av io
r G
am e
in fi
rs t a
nd se
co nd
g ra
de s,
w er
e fo
llo w
ed th
ro ug
h si
xt h
gr ad
e
V er
ba l d
is ru
pt io
n, ph
ys ic
al d
is ru
p - tio
n, o
ut -o
f- se
at ,
no nc
om pl
ia nc
e
G ro
up r
ep ea
te d
m ea
su re
s lo
ng itu
- di
na l p
ar al
le l d
e - si
gn w
ith in
te rn
al an
d ex
te rn
al c
on -
tr ol
g ro
up s
In iti
al ly
, w in
ni ng
te am
(s )
ea rn
ed ta
ng i -
bl e
re w
ar ds
( st
ic ke
rs ,
er as
er s)
; g ra
du al
ly sh
if te
d to
e ar
ni ng
re w
ar di
ng a
ct iv
ity (e
xt ra
r ec
es s,
c la
ss pr
iv ile
ge s)
; w ee
kl y
w in
ne rs
w er
e de
si g-
na te
d an
d re
ce iv
ed sp
ec ia
l r ew
ar d
on Fr
id ay
Fo un
d su
gg es
tiv e
ev id
en ce
on ly
th at
th e
ga m
e “r
e - du
ce d
th e
im pa
ct o
f th
e le
ve l o
f cl
as sr
oo m
a gg
re s -
si on
o n
th e
ri sk
f or
a gg
re s -
si ve
b oy
s in
h ig
he r
ag gr
es -
si ve
c la
ss ro
om s”
f ro
m fi
rs t
th ro
ug h
si xt
h gr
ad es
K el
la m
, S . G
., A
nt ho
ny , J
. C .
19 98
Tw o
co ns
ec ut
iv e
co -
ho rt
s of
fi rs
t gr
ad er
s w
ho r
e- ce
iv ed
th e
G oo
d B
eh av
io r
G am
e in
fi rs
t a nd
s ec
- on
d gr
ad es
, w er
e fo
llo w
ed th
ro ug
h ag
e 14
V er
ba l d
is ru
pt io
n, ph
ys ic
al d
is ru
p- tio
n, o
ut -o
f- se
at ,
no nc
om pl
ia nc
e
G ro
up r
ep ea
te d
m ea
su re
s lo
ng itu
- di
na l p
ar al
le l d
e- si
gn w
ith in
te rn
al an
d ex
te rn
al c
on -
tr ol
g ro
up s
In iti
al ly
, w in
ni ng
te am
(s )
ea rn
ed ta
ng i-
bl e
re w
ar ds
( st
ic ke
rs ,
er as
er s)
; g ra
du al
ly sh
if te
d to
e ar
ni ng
r e-
w ar
di ng
a ct
iv ity
( ex
- tr
a re
ce ss
, c la
ss p
ri v-
ile ge
s) ; w
ee kl
y w
in -
ne rs
w er
e de
si gn
at ed
an d
re ce
iv ed
s pe
ci al
re w
ar d
on F
ri da
y
B oy
s, b
ut n
ot g
ir ls
, i n
ea ch
co ho
rt e
xp os
ed to
th e
ga m
e in
fi rs
t a nd
s ec
on d
gr ad
es w
er e
le ss
li ke
ly to
s ta
rt sm
ok in
g by
a ge
1 4
th an
co nt
ro ls
; t hi
s w
as m
os t n
o- tic
ea bl
e af
te r
10 y
ea rs
o f
ag e;
le ss
a gg
re ss
iv e
bo ys
in fi
rs t g
ra de
s ee
m ed
e ve
n le
ss li
ke ly
to s
m ok
e by
a ge
14
T A
B L
E 1
(c on
ti nu
ed )
A ut
ho r(
s) Ye
ar Pa
rt ic
ip an
ts Ta
rg et
B eh
av io
rs D
es ig
n R
ei nf
or ce
rs M
aj or
R es
ul ts
/C on
cl us
io ns
237
D av
ie s,
S .,
W itt
e, R
. 20
00 T
hi rd
-g ra
de s
tu -
de nt
s, in
cl ud
in g
fo ur
w ith
A D
H D
Ta lk
in g-
ou t
A B
A B
w ith
dr aw
al M
at er
ia l,
so ci
al , a
nd ac
tiv ity
r ei
nf or
ce rs
(u ns
pe ci
fi ed
)
G am
e co
m bi
ne d
w ith
s el
f- m
an ag
em en
t a nd
p ee
r m
on ito
ri ng
p ro
ce du
re s
de -
cr ea
se d
ta lk
in g-
ou t f
or f
ou r
ta rg
et s
tu de
nt s
an d
th ei
r m
at ch
ed c
on tr
ol s
N O
T E
: A D
H D
= a
tte nt
io n
de fi
ci t/h
yp er
ac tiv
ity d
is or
de r.
a. S
um m
ar y
in fo
rm at
io n
fo r
H ub
er (
19 79
) is
f ro
m th
e E
ng lis
h ab
st ra
ct c
on ta
in ed
in th
e ar
tic le
. F ul
l t ex
t o f
ar tic
le is
a va
ila bl
e on
ly in
G er
m an
.
changing criterion design have found that the behavior of the groups changed to meet the new criterion. It is important to note, however, that researchers in all cases maintained a reasonable criterion and did not expect groups of students to have perfect compliance with classroom rules.
INCREASING AND DECREASING STUDENT BEHAVIORS
The majority of GBG investigations have focused on decreasing disruptive student behaviors such as talking, out-of-seat, name call- ing, cursing, and verbal/physical aggression (Barrish et al., 1969; Bostow & Geiger, 1976; Davies & White; 2000; Gresham & Gres- ham, 1982; Harris & Sherman, 1973; Hegerle et al., 1979; Johnson et al., 1978; Kosiec, Czernicki, & McLaughlin, 1986; Medland & Stachnik, 1972; Phillips & Christie, 1986; Saigh & Umar, 1983; Salend et al., 1989; Warner, Miller, & Cohen, 1977; Webster, 1989). Most studies have involved dividing a class into teams (most typically 2 or 3), after which team names were clearly posted. Class rules and behaviors were then established and defined. The teacher then placed marks under a team name whenever a member of that team violated a rule. In general, teams could win in two different ways. First, and most commonly, at the end of a given period of time (e.g., one class period, morning, afternoon, end of day) the team with the fewest marks was deemed the winner and received a preset reward (e.g., extra free time, special privileges, wearing victory tags, etc.). Second, any and all teams could “win” if they remained below a preestablished criterion number of marks.
Hegerle et al. (1979) added a “no tattling” rule to their GBG to reduce concomitant problems associated with students reporting rule violations by other classmates. The game was overwhelmingly suc- cessful and tattling decreased rapidly once the rule was instituted. Similarly, Bostow and Geiger (1976) targeted tattling and “bothering one’s neighbor” (p. 20) in addition to talking, out-of-seat, and follow- ing directions in their GBG with second graders. The team with the fewest marks was allowed to line up first for lunch and each member also received a wrapped cookie to take to lunch. Both teams could win if they had 6 or fewer marks or if there were a tie. Although results per-
238 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
taining to tattling were not specified, Bostow and Geiger reported sig- nificant reduction of target behaviors as a result of the game.
Investigators have also been very creative in their efforts to increase appropriate, prosocial behavior. For example, Robertshaw and Hiebert (1973) implemented the Astronaut Game in which the theme of astro- nauts served as an anchor for the game. First graders were divided into teams and earned tokens for completed seatwork and “good astronaut behavior” (p. 30) that included using good manners, working on assigned tasks, waiting patiently when raising hand for help, and car- rying chairs to and from reading groups quietly. Each day the winning team’s colored spaceship on the bulletin board was moved closer toward the final destination, the moon. Increases in completed seatwork, as well as decreases in inattentive behavior, were noted following implementation. Swiezy et al. (1992) increased compliance using only positive procedures (accumulation of tangibles and attention) while ignoring noncompliance. The game was successful in increas- ing compliance in two pairs of preschoolers. Individuals outside the classroom have also been involved in the GBG. Darch and Thorpe (1977) used the Principal Game in which each of five teams in a dis- ruptive fourth-grade class earned points and teacher praise for being on-task. The winning team(s) then visited and received positive atten- tion from the school principal. Increases in on-task behavior were evi- denced and the game was somewhat more effective than individual contingencies. In another novel application, Patrick et al. (1998) found that the GBG increased appropriate social behaviors as well as reduced inappropriate social behaviors in a physical education class. However, the GBG did not appreciably affect fourth, fifth, and sixth graders’ volleyball skills. The GBG has even been used to increase appropriate behavior in nonclassroom settings. Lutzker and White- Blackburn (1979) designed the “Good Productivity Game” with four hospital residents who were trainees at a rehabilitation industry to increase their work output of a task for which they were paid a wage.
In a unique application of the game, Swain et al. (1982) attempted to address behaviors not traditionally considered in the context of a classroom. The goal was to increase the oral hygiene skills of first and second graders, so the children were encouraged to be the team with the cleanest teeth. Each day, four children were randomly selected
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 239
from each of the two teams and oral hygiene was assessed. The team with the lowest score (lower scores indicated better oral hygiene) on an oral hygiene index won the game. The names of winning team members were posted and each team member received a sticker. Chil- dren were also praised for low scores and received feedback regarding areas of their teeth not brushed well. Students’oral hygiene skills were considerably improved subsequent to implementation of the GBG.
The GBG has also been used to increase desired academic behav- iors. Darveaux (1984) produced increased rates of completed math assignments with 75% accuracy for the entire class by adding a merit component in which students could negate some negative marks pre- viously earned against the team for work completion and active class participation. The increases in work completion and accuracy were even noted to be greater for two target children with histories of behavioral difficulties. This pattern is certainly consistent with litera- ture demonstrating that improvements in academic achievement can yield collateral gains in appropriate behaviors. First-grade students in Robertshaw and Hiebert’s (1973) study showed an increase in work completion as a result of the game. Maloney and Hopkins (1973) designed the “Good Writing Game,” which increased fourth, fifth, and sixth graders’usage of various parts of speech as well as ratings of creativity of written stories. It is interesting that although math skills were not a direct target of their GBG, math accuracy was slightly improved among Harris and Sherman’s (1973) fifth-grade participants.
POPULATIONS
The primary participants in GBG studies have consisted of students in first through sixth grades (Barrish et al., 1969; Bostow & Geiger, 1976; Darch & Thorpe, 1977; Darveaux, 1984; Davies & White; 2000; Fishbein & Wasik, 1981; Gresham & Gresham, 1982; Harris & Sherman, 1973; Johnson et al., 1978; Kosiec et al., 1986; Maloney & Hopkins, 1973; Medland & Stachnik, 1972; Patrick et al., 1998; Robertshaw & Hiebert, 1973; Saigh & Umar, 1983; Warner et al., 1977). However, the GBG has also been used successfully with pre- schoolers (Swiezy et al., 1992), as well as with adolescents (Phillips &
240 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
Christie, 1986; Salend et al., 1989) and adults (Lutzker & White- Blackburn, 1979).
The majority of participants have been students of typical develop- ment in general education classes or students with a history of behav- ior problems. Unfortunately, there are few investigations of the GBG with students with disabilities to date. Gresham and Gresham (1982) conducted the first study of the GBG with children with disabilities. Specifically, they employed a slightly modified version of the game (there would be no winner if either team exceeded the criterion num- ber of marks), as well as phases of independent and dependent group contingencies to effectively reduce classroom levels of disruptive behavior in a classroom with 6- to 10-year-old students with mild mental retardation. The application of the GBG was later extended to additional populations of individuals with disabilities. Salend et al. (1989) successfully reduced a variety and frequency of inappropriate behaviors for three classes of adolescents with emotional disturbance. Likewise, Phillips and Christie (1986) and Webster (1989) success- fully used the game with students with disabilities. More recently, Davies and White (2000) reduced inappropriate verbalizations in third-grade students with attention deficit /hyperactivity disorder by combining self-management and peer-monitoring procedures in a variation of the GBG.
There is a paucity of research considering cultural variables in rela- tion to the effectiveness of the GBG. To date, there has been only a couple of cross-cultural applications of the GBG. Huber (1979) used a slightly modified version of the game to significantly reduce disrup- tive behavior in a group of fourth-grade German students in a summer remedial class. In addition, Saigh and Umar (1983) used the GBG with Sudanese second graders. The game, patterned very closely after Barrish et al.’s (1969) original version, was successful in reducing talking and out-of-seat behavior as well as aggression.
PREVENTION AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS
Since the mid-1980s, Kellam and his associates at the Prevention Research Center of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health have
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 241
included the GBG as part of a large-scale epidemiological project in the Baltimore public schools (Dolan et al., 1993; Kellam & Anthony, 1998; Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Ialongo, 1998; Kellam, Rebok, Ialongo, & Mayer, 1994). With a focus on prevention and the reduction of risk behaviors, the project has used the GBG in an attempt to reduce aggressive and shy behaviors with the ultimate goal of reducing later antisocial behavior and substance usage.
Dolan et al. (1993) initially examined the short-term impact and specificity of the GBG and a Mastery Learning (ML) intervention on their respective specific targets (aggression and shy behavior [GBG] vs. academic achievement [ML]) with 864 first graders. Eight teach- ers received 40 hours of training and implemented the GBG with 182 students across eight classrooms. Targets of the game included verbal and physical disruptions, out-of-seat behavior, and noncompliance. The game was initially implemented in a specific location and at spe- cifically scheduled times using immediate tangible reinforcers, but gradually shifted to the use of activity reinforcers and less predictable times and locations. Dependent variables included teacher ratings and peer nominations of aggression and shyness. Teacher ratings of aggression and shyness for both boys and girls who participated in the GBG were significantly lower in the spring of first grade; the greatest reductions were found for the most aggressive children. Peer nomina- tions of aggression were also reduced significantly for the first-grade boys but not for the girls.
Using the same methodology and participants described in Dolan et al. (1993), Kellam et al. (1994) followed students who participated in the GBG in both first and second grades. First-grade males who were initially rated at or above the median on aggression, and who participated in the game throughout first and second grades, had lower teacher ratings of aggression in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. How- ever, boys who were not aggressive in first grade were not protected by the GBG for later aggression. Similarly, also part of the same large- scale project, Kellam et al. (1998) divided the GBG classrooms into higher and lower aggressive classrooms. They found suggestive evi- dence that the GBG reduced the impact of the level of classroom aggression on the risk for aggressive boys in higher aggressive class- rooms from first to sixth grades.
242 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
Finally, with regard to prevention of substance usage, Kellam and Anthony (1998) followed two consecutive cohorts of first graders who received the GBG in first and second grades through age 14. Boys, but not girls, in each cohort exposed to the GBG in first and sec- ond grades were less likely to start smoking by age 14 than controls. This effect was most noticeable after 10 years of age. In addition, less aggressive boys in first grade seemed even less likely to smoke by age 14.
The above project, beginning with the 1985-86 cohort, is the largest research undertaking that includes the GBG. Taken together, there appears to be at least some initial evidence that the GBG may serve a preventive function for aggressive young boys (Tankersley, 1995), and may also contribute to the prevention of tobacco usage. Consis- tent with a prevention focus, Embry (2002) has recently even made a compelling case in his conceptualization of the GBG as a behavioral vaccine for the “prevention of multiproblem behavior” (p. 276).
CONSUMER SATISFACTION
Most studies reporting acceptability and social validity data (Barrish et al., 1969; Darveaux, 1984; Davies & White, 2000; Grandy et al., 1973; Saigh & Umar, 1983; Salend et al., 1989; Tingstrom, 1994) have suggested that the GBG is an acceptable intervention. Barrish et al. reported that the procedure was popular with teachers and school officials. Saigh and Umar (1983) reported that students, teachers, par- ents, and the principal were pleased with the game in their Sudanese cross-cultural investigation. Similarly, other investigators have reported that the GBG has been acceptable or even highly acceptable to partici- pating students and teachers (Darveaux, 1984; Salend et al., 1989). In general, it appears that the GBG is usually popular with and accept- able to students and teachers.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
As evident in the reviewed research, there is considerable empirical evidence for the efficacy of the GBG, both in its original form and in
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 243
the many modifications of the procedure. Despite the research sup- port, interested practitioners and teachers may have concerns or ques- tions about actual implementation issues in the classroom. The fol- lowing section reports information for the use of particular reinforcers as well as advantages and disadvantages that should be considered when planning the GBG.
REINFORCERS
From a theoretical perspective, the GBG, in its original form, can be conceptualized as differential reinforcement of low rates of behav- ior (DRL; Litow & Pumroy, 1975). In this case, the group or team is reinforced if their behavior or responses during a particular time period are equal to or below some criterion level. That is, children are reinforced for low rates of behavior either when they have “outper- formed” other groups or when they have met a preestablished criterion based on a small number of infractions of classroom rules.
As stated previously, some investigators have modified the GBG to emphasize appropriate behavior. When groups are expected to meet a criterion based on a sufficient number of appropriate behaviors, the mechanism through which the intervention is effective is best concep- tualized as differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI). In this case, appropriate behavior is incompatible with disrup- tive or problematic classroom behavior.
From a pragmatic, implementation perspective, interdependent group contingencies such as the GBG are advantageous because teachers can use reinforcers that occur naturally in the school setting (Barrish et al., 1969; Johnson et al., 1978). As seen in the reviewed studies, common, planned reinforcers have included free time, addi- tional recess time, or additional activity time (Barrish et al., 1969; Darveaux, 1984; Fishbein & Wasik, 1981; Grandy et al., 1973; Gres- ham & Gresham, 1982; Hegerle et al., 1979; Johnson et al., 1978; Maloney & Hopkins, 1973; Medland & Stachnik, 1972; Robertshaw & Hiebert, 1973; Saigh & Umar, 1983). Teachers can use a variety of activity reinforcers such as going to the library, being the teacher’s helper, reading, playing games in the classroom, working on special art and science projects, watching movies, listening to music, tutoring
244 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
younger students, going outside to talk or read, and helping the art or music teacher on special projects (Grandy et al., 1973). Although less preferred, teachers can also use other readily available reinforcers such as snacks (Bostow & Gieger, 1976; Darveaux, 1984; Hegerle et al., 1979; Kosiec et al., 1986; Lutzker & White-Blackburn, 1979; Maloney & Hopkins, 1973; Salend et al., 1989; Swiezy et al., 1992); however, researchers would need to review ethical considerations when feeding issues are involved before considering this option. In addition to daily rewards, teachers may wish to consider including weekly rewards (bonuses), especially with older participants.
Researchers have also employed fairly creative and unique rein- forcers such as leaving school 10 minutes early (Harris & Sherman, 1973), lining up first for lunch (Bostow & Geiger, 1976), a special visit from the school principal (Darch & Thorpe, 1977), early work termination (Lutzker & White-Blackburn, 1979), a party (Gresham & Gresham, 1982), a weekly commendation letter (Saigh & Umar, 1983) or a positive note to a dorm counselor (Salend et al., 1989), lunch with a staff member (Salend et al., 1989), or some type of public posting of results (Barrish et al., 1969; Hegerle et al., 1979; Patrick et al., 1998; Swain et al., 1982). Many of these less commonly used rein- forcers are often available or could be available in many or most class- room settings with sufficient planning.
ADVANTAGES
The GBG would appear to have many advantages as a behavior management technique in the classroom. The inclusion of activity or event reinforcers highlights an advantage of the GBG (and other inter- dependent group contingencies) in that events or activities can be more easily incorporated as potential reinforcers than tangibles because they are resource efficient and difficult to purchase, steal, or share (Kelshaw-Levering, Sterling-Turner, Henry, & Skinner, 2000).
In addition to incorporating reinforcers for work and self-control, the GBG capitalizes on group solidarity and cooperation within teams (Gresham & Gresham, 1982). There is also the potential for positive side effects such as increasing prosocial and cooperative behaviors among group members (Gamble & Strain, 1979; Salend et al., 1989;
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 245
Salend & Lamb, 1986). Because the GBG is a type of interdependent group-oriented contingency, it also takes advantage of issues related to group competition and conformity (Darveaux, 1984). In other words, the peer influence assists in managing behavior (Litow & Pumroy, 1975). Often, peer attention works against teachers by rein- forcing and maintaining problem/disruptive behavior. However, in interdependent group–oriented contingencies such as the GBG, stu- dents often withhold their social attention (e.g., laughs, snickers, smiles) from peers’disruptive behavior (Sulzbacher & Houser, 1968), or provide disapproval in place of this social attention (Hayes, 1976; Nelson, 1981). Different forms of social attention may differentially influence target behavior (Piazza et al., 1999). Thus, the mechanism for behavior change may vary slightly depending on the required response from peers (i.e., withholding one form of social attention or providing another).
As stated previously, students can win the GBG in a variety of ways (e.g., the team with the fewest points, or all teams below or meeting a given criterion). Thus, students may be motivated to behave according to the rules even if their team has collectively violated a few rules as long as the preestablished criterion has not been exceeded. Similarly, students may be motivated to behave appropriately even if they have surpassed the preestablished criterion because they may gain access to rewards based on their relative performance compared to competing teams. In fact, students may be motivated to behave appropriately because other students continue to be involved in regulation of behav- ior despite having already met an established criterion.
Teachers may prefer to use a group-oriented procedure such as the GBG because it may alleviate some teachers’concern that a particular student will be singled out and treated differently (Elliott, Turco, & Gresham, 1987). In addition, from a teacher’s perspective, the GBG can be an efficient intervention. The contingencies are resource (i.e., the same consequence for all students) and time efficient, and there- fore make group contingencies easier for educators to manage (Axelrod, 1973; Elliott et al., 1987; Gresham & Gresham, 1982; Salend et al., 1989).
There is a great deal of flexibility in the implementation of the game and it can be designed to be as simple or as complex as desired.
246 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
For example, although at least two teams are needed to capitalize on team competition, additional teams could be formed if doing so suited the purposes of the teacher. It seems advisable, however, that the game be kept in its simplest form unless there are compelling reasons to make it more complex. Otherwise, teacher monitoring and implemen- tation may become overly cumbersome and unwieldy, thus defeating the purposes and attendant advantages of the game. Two studies con- ducted in the United Kingdom (Phillips & Christie, 1986; Webster, 1989) have demonstrated that the GBG can be implemented, man- aged, and monitored by a single teacher without an assistant. Regard- less of the structure, component analyses of the GBG suggest that there are only a few essential features that should be incorporated including dividing the class into teams, setting criteria for winning, and reinforcement for the winning team(s) (Harris & Sherman, 1973).
Finally, an additional feature of the GBG that may contribute to its utility and popularity is that it may not require rigorous compliance on the part of the teacher to be effective. Salend et al. (1989), for example, found the game successful despite treatment integrity levels ranging from .62 to .79 across three classes in which the game was imple- mented. Therefore, although gross generalizations should not be made on the basis of a single study, preliminary evidence suggests that the game may be robust enough to withstand incomplete adherence to the established protocol.
DISADVANTAGES
As with all interventions, in addition to the many advantages of the GBG, there are potential disadvantages to the utilization of the game as well that need to be considered. The peer influence that operates in the GBG can potentially be the greatest disadvantage (Cashwell, Skinner, Dunn, & Lewis, 1998; Hayes, 1976; O’Leary & Drabman, 1971; Page & Edwards, 1978). O’Leary and Drabman (1971), for example, caution that peer influence can produce undue peer pressure verging on harassment toward the individual who does not exhibit the requisite behavior(s). There exists the possibility that students may perceive a lack of fairness of the system when others cause the loss of privileges or rewards. Students who may already have difficulty regu-
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 247
lating their own behavior may even direct their frustrations or perhaps even aggression at the offending students (Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996). Teachers and consultants may wish to implement direct, proactive procedures to guard against the potential development of excessive group pressure. For example, one teacher combined group training (role playing and group meetings) emphasizing appropriate reactions to offending students responsible for the possible loss of reinforcers with a warning to students that the use of negative peer pressure would not be tolerated and would result in a separate meeting with the teacher for “corrective feedback” (Davies & White, 2000, p. 140).
As with all interdependent group contingencies, another potential disadvantage of the GBG is that planned reinforcers may not be able to compete with the benefits of “sabotaging” a program or refusing to conform to the classroom rules (Kelshaw-Levering et al., 2000; O’Leary & Drabman, 1971). The behavior of these students may con- tinually cause a group or team to lose rewards. This effect has been encountered in several studies (Barrish et al., 1969; Harris & Sherman, 1973; Hegerle et al., 1979) and it has been addressed in several ways. For example, some students have been removed, either temporarily or permanently, from the game (Barrish et al., 1969). Hergerle et al. (1979) had teachers simply not count an offending student’s points against a team. Another option is to form a separate team with those offenders so as not to penalize other team members (Harris & Sherman, 1973). An optimal alternative may be to use a combination of individ- ual and group-oriented contingencies (Hayes, 1976; Nelson, 1981; O’Leary & Drabman, 1971) to address issues of sabotage (Crouch, Gresham, & Wright, 1985). Finally, Skinner and his colleagues (Kelshaw-Levering et al., 2000; Skinner et al., 1996; Skinner & Wat- son, 2000) have suggested the randomization of components (e.g., reinforcers, target behaviors and criteria, contingency, and students) in interdependent group-oriented contingencies such as the GBG to overcome many of the above problems associated with undue peer pressure and sabotage. For example, a number of containers could each be labeled with the above components (e.g., reinforcers, target behaviors and criteria, contingency, and students) with slips of paper containing various alternatives for each component. At the end of the
248 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
“game time” or even at random times, slips could be drawn to see what reinforcers were earned, what target behavior (perhaps among a few alternatives) was in effect, the specific criterion to be met (e.g., 85% on quiz), and the type of contingency in effect (e.g., group average, group high, individual student). If the “individual student” slip is drawn, then a name from the “students” jar is also chosen. In this man- ner, students are less likely to sabotage a program because they do not care for the “promised” reinforcer or because one student has caused the group to lose access to reinforcement. Drawings could also be scheduled randomly, thus no one knows when another drawing may take place.
CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the wide range of applications of the GBG described in this review, it would seem little additional research is necessary to support its use. However, there are some recommendations regarding studies that should be considered by investigators interested in the GBG. First, the potential for excessive group pressure on children violating classroom rules exists whenever the GBG is implemented. Research- ers may want to investigate additional ways of reducing this kind of pressure while maximizing the positive outcomes for all participants. Davies and White (2000) reported responding to excessive group pressure by provided a group warning and “corrective feedback” (p. 140) when this behavior occurred. This kind of response could be compared to an alternate consequence such as loss of group points or loss of reward the next time it is earned. In this way, coercive behavior from peers could be minimized. Yet the social behavior of peers may play a pivotal role in the success of the GBG and minor social disap- proval may be highly beneficial without producing any negative effects on the child most frequently breaking class rules. Thus, the rel- ative effectiveness of each of these procedures in simultaneously reducing infractions of class rules and excessive group pressure should be examined empirically.
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 249
Additional research should also be conducted with populations with whom little research has been conducted. Only one study has been conducted with preschoolers, and in this case only a few students were involved (Swiezy et al., 1992). The GBG may be more difficult to effectively implement with preschoolers when the game is applied to the entire class because preschool classrooms are often less struc- tured than elementary classrooms. For example, monitoring behavior and associating individual students with their groups may be more problematic in classrooms in which children are allowed to select which “work area” they want to attend at any point in time.
Although much of the research on the GBG is somewhat dated (see Table 1), it has been shown to be an effective behavior management procedure for use in the classroom and other academic settings. There has, however, been more recent research in the 1990s to suggest that the game may play a preventive role in the development of aggression and tobacco usage. The game is time efficient and easy for teachers to use. Researchers have amply demonstrated its efficacy across a wide array of social and academic behaviors, settings, and age groups. Efforts to assess the effectiveness of the GBG have also yielded posi- tive results cross-culturally.
REFERENCES
Axelrod, S. (1973). Comparison of individual and group contingencies in two special classes. Behavior Therapy, 4, 83-90.
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. W. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.
Bostow, D., & Geiger, O. G. (1976). Good behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis with a second grade class. School Applications of Learning Theory, 8, 18-27.
Bushell, D., Jr., Wrobel, P. A., & Michaelis, M. L. (1968). Applying “group” contingencies to the classroom study behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 55- 61.
Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, C. H., Dunn, M., & Lewis, J. (1998). Group reward programs: A humanistic approach. Humanistic Education and Development, 37, 47-53.
Crouch, P. L., Gresham, F. M., & Wright, W. R. (1985). Interdependent and independent group contingencies with immediate and delayed reinforcement for controlling classroom behav- ior. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 177-187.
Darch, C. B., & Thorpe, H. W. (1977). The principal game: A group consequence procedure to increase classroom on-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 341-347.
250 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
Darveaux, D. X. (1984). The good behavior game plus merit: Controlling disruptive behavior and improving student motivation. School Psychology Review, 13, 510-514.
Davies, S., & White, R. (2000). Self-management and peer-monitoring within a group contingency to decrease uncontrolled verbalizations of children with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 135-147.
Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., et al. (1993). The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- chology, 14, 317-345.
Elliott, S. N., Turco, T. L., & Gresham, F. M. (1987). Consumers’ and clients’ pretreatment acceptability ratings of classroom group contingencies. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 145-153.
Embry, D. D. (2002) The good behavior game: A best practice candidate as a universal behav- ioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 273-297.
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.
Gamble, A., & Strain, P. S. (1979). The effects of dependent and interdependent group contin- gencies on socially appropriate responses in classes for emotionally handicapped children. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 253-260.
Grandy, G. S., Madsen, C. H., Jr., & De Mersseman, L. M. (1973). The effects of individual and interdependent contingencies on inappropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 488-493.
Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special Education, 16, 101-110.
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.
Hayes, L. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 83, 628-648.
Hegerle, D. R., Kesecker, M. P., & Couch, J. V. (1979). A behavior game for the reduction of inappropriate classroom behaviors. School Psychology Digest, 8, 339-343.
Huber, H. (1979). The value of a behavior modification programme, administered in a fourth grade class of a remedial school. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 28, 73-79.
Johnson, M. R., Turner, P. F., & Konarski, E. A. (1978). The “good behavior game”: A systematic replication in two unruly transitional classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 1, 25-33.
Kellam, S. G., & Anthony, J. C. (1998). Targeting early antecedents to prevent tobacco smoking: Findings from an epidemiologically based randomized field trial. American Journal of Pub- lic Health, 88, 1490-1495.
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.
Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiologically-based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-281.
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 251
Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Random- ized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 523-533.
Kosiec, L. E., Czernicki, M. R., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1986). The good behavior game: A replica- tion with consumer satisfaction in two regular elementary school classrooms. Techniques, 2, 15-23.
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.
Lutzker, J. R., & White-Blackburn, G. (1979). The good productivity game: Increasing work per- formance in a rehabilitation setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 488.
Maloney, K. B., & Hopkins, B. L. (1973). The modification of sentence structure and its relation- ship to subjective judgments of creativity in writing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 425-433.
Medland, M. B., & Stachnik, T. J. (1972). Good-behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 45-51.
Nelson, C. M. (1981). Classroom management. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 663-687). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
O’Leary, K. D., & Drabman, R. (1971). Token reinforcement programs in the classroom: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 379-398.
Page, D. P., & Edwards, R. P. (1978). Behavior change strategies for reducing disruptive class- room behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 413-418.
Patrick, C. A., Ward, P., & Crouch, W. D. (1998). Effects of holding students accountable for social behaviors during volleyball games in elementary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 143-156.
Phillips, D., & Christie, F. (1986). Behaviour management in a secondary school classroom: Playing the game. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 4, 47-53.
Piazza, C., Bowman, L. G., Contrucci, S. A., Delia, M. D., Adelinis, J. E., & Goh, H. L. (1999). An evaluation of the properties of attention as reinforcement for destructive and appropriate behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 437-450.
Robertshaw, C. S., & Hiebert, H. D. (1973). The astronaut game: A group contingency applied to a first grade classroom. School Applications of Learning Theory, 6, 28-33.
Saigh, P. A., & Umar, A. M. (1983). The effects of a good behavior game on the disruptive behav- ior of Sudanese elementary school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 339- 344.
Salend, S. J., & Lamb, E. A. (1986). Effectiveness of a group-managed interdependent contin- gency system. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 268-273.
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.
Schmidt, G. W., & Ulrich, R. E. (1969). Effects of group contingent events upon classroom noise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 171-179.
Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, C. S., & Dunn, M. S. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the Schools, 12, 61-78.
Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2002). Best practices in contingency management: Application of individual and group contingencies in educational settings. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 817-830). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Skinner, C. H., & Watson, T. S. (2000). Randomized group contingencies: Lotteries in the class- room. School Psychologist, 54, 21, 24, 32, 36-38.
252 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / March 2006
Solomon, R., & Tyne, T. F. (1979). A comparison of individual and group contingency systems in a first-grade class. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 193-200.
Sulzbacher, S. A., & Houser, J. E. (1968). A tactic to eliminate disruptive behaviors in the class- room: Group contingent consequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 88-90.
Swain, J. J., Allard, G. B., & Holborn, S. W. (1982). The good toothbrushing game: A school- based dental hygiene program for increasing the toothbrushing effectiveness of children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 171-176.
Swiezy, N. B., Matson, J. L., & Box, P. (1992). The good behavior game: A token reinforcement system for preschoolers. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 14, 21-32.
Tankersley, M. (1995). A group-oriented contingency management program: A review of research on the good behavior game and implications for teachers. Preventing School Fail- ure, 40, 19-24.
Tingstrom, D. H. (1994). The good behavior game: An investigation of teachers’ acceptance. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 57-65.
Warner, S. P., Miller, F. D., & Cohen, M. W. (1977). Relative effectiveness of teacher attention and the “good behavior game” in modifying disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 737.
Webster, J. B. (1989). Applying behavior management principles with limited resources: Going it alone. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 7, 30-38.
Daniel H. Tingstrom, Ph.D., is a professor and director of the School Psychology Pro- gram in the Department of Psychology at the University of Southern Mississippi. His research interests include applied behavior analysis, and the implementation and evalu- ation of behavioral and academic interventions.
Heather E. Sterling-Turner, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School Psychology Program in the Department of Psychology at the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research interests include functional assessment and analysis, applied behavior analy- sis, pediatric psychology, and direct behavioral consultation.
Susan M. Wilczynski, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and autism director at the Univer- sity of Nebraska Medical Center and Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabili- tation. She conducts research in the areas of positive behavioral supports for children with autism and functional analysis.
Tingstrom et al. / GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 253
