Review

The Good Behavior Game: A brief review

P. RAYMOND JOSLYN

BERRY COLLEGE

JEANNE M. DONALDSON

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

JENNIFER L. AUSTIN

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH WALES

TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a group contingency that reduces disruption and increases engagement in various contexts. In recent years, researchers have extended the GBG in at least 3 ways: (a) demonstrating its efficacy with novel populations, settings, and behaviors, (b) examining procedural variations that improve contextual fit, and (c) using more comprehen- sive data collection methods to explore the behavior of individual students and indirect effects. The purpose of the current review is to summarize recent advances, discuss implications of recent studies and potential mechanisms for the general efficacy of the GBG, and suggest future directions. Key words: classroom management, disruptive behavior, Good Behavior Game, group

contingencies

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a versa- tile group contingency with a strong empirical foundation (Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014). Since its first dem- onstration as a classroom-management proce- dure with fourth-grade students (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), the GBG has been studied extensively. Traditionally, the GBG is implemented by dividing a class into teams, setting rules, and marking points contingent on rule-breaking. Students win the game and are given rewards if their team receives fewer than some predetermined number of points. Recently, the GBG has generated renewed

interest among researchers. We will discuss ways in which researchers have expanded upon

this 50-year-old procedure, including applica- tions in novel contexts, procedural variations and their effects, indirect effects and novel data collection methods, potential behavioral mecha- nisms, and general directions for future research.

NOVEL POPULATIONS, SETTINGS, AND BEHAVIORS

The GBG is most commonly implemented as a classroom-management procedure with ele- mentary students (Flower et al., 2014), but has recently been used in several other contexts. First, the GBG has been extended to under- graduate (Cheatham, Ozga, St. Peter, Mes- ches, & Owsiany, 2017) and preschool students (e.g., Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, 2019). Second, the GBG’s effectiveness has recently been demonstrated with a broader array of student populations, including those

Address correspondence to: P. Raymond Joslyn, Teacher Education Department, Berry College, P.O. Box 495019, Mount Berry, Georgia, 30149. Email: [email protected] doi: 10.1002/jaba.572

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 811–815 NUMBER 3 (SUMMER)

© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

811

with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and histories of delinquency in alternative- education environments (e.g., Groves & Aus- tin, 2017; Joslyn, Vollmer, & Hernández, 2014). Finally, the GBG has recently been shown to improve previously unexplored behaviors (e.g., undergraduate class participa- tion and physical activity; Cheatham et al., 2017; Galbraith & Normand, 2017). These findings support the notion that the GBG is a robust procedure capable of improving behav- ior across various scenarios and contexts. Fur- ther, the GBG appears to have strong social validity across multiple contexts (e.g., Donaldson, Matter, & Wiskow, 2018; Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, & Morri- son, 2016). Although recent research has shown the gen-

erality of the GBG, few published studies have shown contexts in which it is ineffective (c.f., Donaldson, Fisher, & Kahng, 2017). Such studies are needed to indicate variables that may impact the effectiveness of the GBG and to provide information from which solutions for potential obstacles can be generated. For example, research suggests that students with behavioral, family, and demographic risk factors may be less likely to respond to the GBG (Spilt, Koot, & van Lier, 2013). Future research should further examine the feasibility of the GBG in challenging environments, par- ticipant variables predictive of effectiveness, conditions in which treatment integrity is vari- able or consistently low, and implementation using a variety of reinforcers.

PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS

Researchers have evaluated numerous proce- dural variations to improve contextual fit of the GBG. For example, given that some stake- holders prefer to target appropriate behavior, several researchers have reversed the point con- tingency in the GBG such that points are awarded for following the rules instead of

breaking them, often referred to as the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG; Wahl et al., 2016). Despite the potential for the CBGG to refocus teacher attention on appropriate rather than inappropriate behaviors, comparisons between game formats have found no differ- ences in effects on teacher praise or student behavior (Wahl et al., 2016). Other studies on contingency variations

include the successful implementation of differential-reinforcement-of-alternative- behavior schedules to increase specific responses (Cheatham et al., 2017; Galbraith & Normand, 2017) and comparisons of group contingencies. Groves and Austin (2017) implemented the GBG using independent and interdependent group contingencies in a class- room in which the teacher had concerns about students’ abilities to work in teams. The inde- pendent and interdependent group contingen- cies were equally effective in reducing disruptive behavior, but the teacher and stu- dents preferred the interdependent arrange- ment. Relative to independent contingencies, interdependent contingencies may increase opportunities for prosocial interactions. Groves and Austin (2019) found that a natural side effect of the GBG was an increase in positive peer interactions (and a reduction in negative interactions) among primary and secondary stu- dents with histories of poor peer relationships. Future research should further examine stake- holder preference for these variations in differ- ent contexts and potential differences in long- term effectiveness. Recent research has also examined manipula-

tions of specific components of the GBG. Wiskow et al. (2019) compared different forms of feedback for rule violations (none, vocal, visual, vocal and visual) in two preschool classes and found that vocal feedback was required to substantially reduce disruptive behavior. Foley, Dozier, and Lessor (2019) conducted a compo- nent analysis of the traditional GBG (rules, feedback, criterion, reinforcer) in one preschool

P. RAYMOND JOSLYN et al.812

class. They evaluated rules alone, and then sequentially added feedback, a criterion, and noncontingent reinforcement prior to implementing the GBG. Disruptive behavior decreased only when the entire GBG package was implemented (rules, feedback, criterion, contingent reinforcement). Future component analyses and manipulations may be helpful for improving GBG efficiency, fading the proce- dure over time, and exploring the potential of population-specific component effects. Other GBG variations have been used but

not systematically evaluated. For example, the original GBG divided the class into two teams, but subsequent researchers have used multiple teams (e.g., Spilt et al., 2013) or one team when the class size was small (e.g., Joslyn, Vol- lmer, & Kronfli, 2019). Studies have also var- ied in the ways that the criterion for winning the game has been selected (e.g., teacher- or experimenter-selected; Sy, Gratz, & Donaldson, 2016) or communicated to students. Some researchers have not disclosed the criterion for winning until the end (e.g., Wahl et al., 2016), while others announced the criterion from the outset (e.g., Sy et al., 2016). One study (Donaldson et al., 2018) piloted the feasibility of having students implement the GBG, suggesting one potential way to reduce teacher effort. In most studies, the GBG is implemented by teachers, but it has also been implemented by experimenters. Although mea- surements of treatment integrity vary and are not always collected, teachers’ treatment integ- rity is often lower than that of experimenters, but produces similar reductions in problem behavior (Joslyn & Vollmer, in press). Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of these variations on the efficacy, efficiency, and acceptability of the game.

NOVEL DATA COLLECTION

Researchers have begun to collect data on some potentially important indirect effects.

Three recent studies have shown data on indi- vidual student behavior in addition to, or instead of, group-level aggregates (Donaldson et al., 2017; Foley et al., 2019; Groves & Aus- tin, 2017). Although most individuals’ behavior matched the aggregated outcomes, Donaldson et al. (2017) and Foley et al. (2019) identified some individual nonresponders, leading Dona- ldson et al. to suggest using the GBG as a class-wide screening tool to identify students who may require individualized interventions. Similarly, nonresponders might respond to sub- tle variations of the GBG (e.g., selecting rein- forcers based on preference assessments). Other researchers have examined the mainte-

nance of GBG effects after the game ended (e.g., Donaldson, Wiskow, & Soto, 2015). These studies have indicated that the target behavior did not improve or worsen during activities immediately following the GBG, suggesting that (a) teachers should implement the GBG during any activities in which disrup- tive behavior is likely and (b) teachers can implement the GBG at targeted times through- out the day without causing increased disrup- tive behavior during nontargeted activities. Implementing the GBG may have side

effects on teacher behavior. Recent research has shown increases in teacher delivery of praise rel- ative to reprimands during the GBG (e.g., Rubow, Vollmer, & Joslyn, 2018). Understanding the changes in teacher–student interactions as a function of the GBG is an important area for future research to help eluci- date some of the potential mechanisms for the reported longitudinal effects.

POTENTIAL MECHANISMS

The GBG involves multiple components and likely has several mechanisms underlying its effects. One component of the GBG is tell- ing the students specific rules about how to behave to win the game, likely harnessing rule- governed behavior. The game itself is designed

813GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME

as a full-session differential-reinforcement-of low-rates schedule in which students earn puta- tive reinforcers for engaging in fewer than a specified number of responses. Points may serve a dual function as both discriminative stimuli and conditioned reinforcers or punishers. That is, the number of points a team has earned in isolation or in comparison with the other team(s) is discriminative for the availability of the reinforcer for winning the game. The asso- ciation between points and the terminal rein- forcer may condition points as reinforcers or punishers, depending on the variant of the game played. Because the GBG is typically an

interdependent group contingency in which the behavior of all team members affects reinforcer delivery, peer-mediated contingencies likely contribute to its effectiveness. Groves and Aus- tin (2019) found that the GBG evoked appro- priate peer interaction and support. However, more research is needed to examine how the GBG affects peer interactions and whether changes in peer interactions could elucidate mechanisms responsible for long-term behav- ioral improvements following the GBG (Groves & Austin, 2019), including reduced drug use and risky sexual behavior in adulthood (Kellam et al., 2014). Reductions in problem behavior associated

with the GBG may increase a child’s access to social reinforcement from teachers, peers, and parents. Some evidence suggests that long- term reductions in aggression are mediated by improving at-risk children’s acceptance by their peers (e.g., Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2013). However, Breeman et al. (2016) reported no improvements in peer acceptance for children with psychiatric disor- ders during the school year in which they experienced the GBG, despite reductions in problem behavior. In addition, research has indicated that the effects of the GBG may not generalize to settings in which it is not being implemented (e.g., Donaldson et al.,

2015). Future research should investigate how early exposure to the GBG may produce desirable long-term effects.

SUMMARY

Although the GBG has been studied using a variety of methods and in various contexts, there is still much to be learned. Some impor- tant future directions include: (a) evaluating the GBG with novel populations, settings, and behaviors, (b) further exploring the effects of procedural variations on efficiency, efficacy, and acceptability, (c) using novel data collec- tion methods to capture indirect effects, and (d) attempting to isolate and clarify the mecha- nisms responsible for behavior change and long-term effects.

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

Breeman, L. D., van Lier, P. A., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., Maras, A., . . . Tick, N. T. (2016). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on the behavioral, emotional, and social prob- lems of children with psychiatric disorders in special education settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1098300715593466

Cheatham, J. M., Ozga, J. E., St. Peter, C. C., Mesches, G. A., & Owsiany, J. M. (2017). Increasing class participation in college classrooms with the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864- 017-9266-7

Donaldson, J. M., Fisher, A. B., & Kahng, S. (2017). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on individual student behavior. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/ bar0000016

Donaldson, J. M., Matter, A., & Wiskow, K. M. (2018). Feasibility of and teacher preference for student-led implementation of the Good Behavior Game in early elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jaba.432

P. RAYMOND JOSLYN et al.814

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

Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C., & Vega Jr, R. (2014). 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

Foley, E., Dozier, C., & Lessor, A. (2019). Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a pre- school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.506

Galbraith, L. A., & Normand, M. P. (2017). Step it up! Using the Good Behavior Game to increase physical activity with elementary school students at recess. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 856-860. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.402

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

Groves, E. A., & Austin, J. L. (2019). Does the Good Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Ana- lyses in primary and secondary school classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 3-16. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jaba.513

Joslyn, P. R., & Vollmer, T. R. (in press). Efficacy of teacher-implemented Good Behavior Game despite low treatment integrity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Joslyn, P. R., Vollmer, T. R., & Hernández, V. (2014). Implementation of the Good Behavior Game in class- rooms for children with delinquent behavior. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 4, 1673-1682. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2007-4719(14)70973-1

Joslyn, P. R., Vollmer, T. R., & Kronfli, F. R. (2019). Interdependent group contingencies reduce disrup- tion in alternative high school classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09321-0

Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Mackenzie, A. C., Brown, C. H., Ompad, D. C., Or, F., . . .

Windham, A. (2014). The impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom-based preven- tive intervention in first and second grades, on high- risk sexual behaviors and drug abuse and dependence disorders into young adulthood. Prevention Science, 15, 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007. 10.009

Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2013). The role of children’s on-task behavior in the prevention of aggressive behavior development and peer rejection: A randomized controlled study of the Good Behavior Game in Belgian elementary class- rooms. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.12.006

Rubow, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., & Joslyn, R. R. (2018). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior in an alternative school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 382-392. https://doi. org/10.1002/jaba.455

Spilt, J. L., Koot, J. M., & van Lier, P. A. (2013). For whom does it work? Subgroup differences in the effects of a school-based universal prevention pro- gram. Prevention Science, 14, 479-488. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-012-0329-7

Sy, J. R., Gratz, O., & Donaldson, J. M. (2016). The Good Behavior Game with students in alternative educational environments: Interactions between rein- forcement criteria and scoring accuracy. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 455-477. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10864-016-9257-0

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644220

Wiskow, K. M., Matter, A., & Donaldson, J. M. (2019). The Good Behavior Game in preschool classrooms: An evaluation of feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.506

Received February 2, 2018 Final acceptance March 19, 2019 Action Editor, Claire St. Peter

815GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME

Copyright of Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Good Behavior Game: A brief review

P. RAYMOND JOSLYN

BERRY COLLEGE

JEANNE M. DONALDSON

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

JENNIFER L. AUSTIN

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH WALES

TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a group contingency that reduces disruption and increases engagement in various contexts. In recent years, researchers have extended the GBG in at least 3 ways: (a) demonstrating its efficacy with novel populations, settings, and behaviors, (b) examining procedural variations that improve contextual fit, and (c) using more comprehen- sive data collection methods to explore the behavior of individual students and indirect effects. The purpose of the current review is to summarize recent advances, discuss implications of recent studies and potential mechanisms for the general efficacy of the GBG, and suggest future directions. Key words: classroom management, disruptive behavior, Good Behavior Game, group

contingencies

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a versa- tile group contingency with a strong empirical foundation (Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014). Since its first dem- onstration as a classroom-management proce- dure with fourth-grade students (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), the GBG has been studied extensively. Traditionally, the GBG is implemented by dividing a class into teams, setting rules, and marking points contingent on rule-breaking. Students win the game and are given rewards if their team receives fewer than some predetermined number of points. Recently, the GBG has generated renewed

interest among researchers. We will discuss ways in which researchers have expanded upon

this 50-year-old procedure, including applica- tions in novel contexts, procedural variations and their effects, indirect effects and novel data collection methods, potential behavioral mecha- nisms, and general directions for future research.

NOVEL POPULATIONS, SETTINGS, AND BEHAVIORS

The GBG is most commonly implemented as a classroom-management procedure with ele- mentary students (Flower et al., 2014), but has recently been used in several other contexts. First, the GBG has been extended to under- graduate (Cheatham, Ozga, St. Peter, Mes- ches, & Owsiany, 2017) and preschool students (e.g., Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, 2019). Second, the GBG’s effectiveness has recently been demonstrated with a broader array of student populations, including those

Address correspondence to: P. Raymond Joslyn, Teacher Education Department, Berry College, P.O. Box 495019, Mount Berry, Georgia, 30149. Email: [email protected] doi: 10.1002/jaba.572

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 811–815 NUMBER 3 (SUMMER)

© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

811

with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and histories of delinquency in alternative- education environments (e.g., Groves & Aus- tin, 2017; Joslyn, Vollmer, & Hernández, 2014). Finally, the GBG has recently been shown to improve previously unexplored behaviors (e.g., undergraduate class participa- tion and physical activity; Cheatham et al., 2017; Galbraith & Normand, 2017). These findings support the notion that the GBG is a robust procedure capable of improving behav- ior across various scenarios and contexts. Fur- ther, the GBG appears to have strong social validity across multiple contexts (e.g., Donaldson, Matter, & Wiskow, 2018; Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, & Morri- son, 2016). Although recent research has shown the gen-

erality of the GBG, few published studies have shown contexts in which it is ineffective (c.f., Donaldson, Fisher, & Kahng, 2017). Such studies are needed to indicate variables that may impact the effectiveness of the GBG and to provide information from which solutions for potential obstacles can be generated. For example, research suggests that students with behavioral, family, and demographic risk factors may be less likely to respond to the GBG (Spilt, Koot, & van Lier, 2013). Future research should further examine the feasibility of the GBG in challenging environments, par- ticipant variables predictive of effectiveness, conditions in which treatment integrity is vari- able or consistently low, and implementation using a variety of reinforcers.

PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS

Researchers have evaluated numerous proce- dural variations to improve contextual fit of the GBG. For example, given that some stake- holders prefer to target appropriate behavior, several researchers have reversed the point con- tingency in the GBG such that points are awarded for following the rules instead of

breaking them, often referred to as the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG; Wahl et al., 2016). Despite the potential for the CBGG to refocus teacher attention on appropriate rather than inappropriate behaviors, comparisons between game formats have found no differ- ences in effects on teacher praise or student behavior (Wahl et al., 2016). Other studies on contingency variations

include the successful implementation of differential-reinforcement-of-alternative- behavior schedules to increase specific responses (Cheatham et al., 2017; Galbraith & Normand, 2017) and comparisons of group contingencies. Groves and Austin (2017) implemented the GBG using independent and interdependent group contingencies in a class- room in which the teacher had concerns about students’ abilities to work in teams. The inde- pendent and interdependent group contingen- cies were equally effective in reducing disruptive behavior, but the teacher and stu- dents preferred the interdependent arrange- ment. Relative to independent contingencies, interdependent contingencies may increase opportunities for prosocial interactions. Groves and Austin (2019) found that a natural side effect of the GBG was an increase in positive peer interactions (and a reduction in negative interactions) among primary and secondary stu- dents with histories of poor peer relationships. Future research should further examine stake- holder preference for these variations in differ- ent contexts and potential differences in long- term effectiveness. Recent research has also examined manipula-

tions of specific components of the GBG. Wiskow et al. (2019) compared different forms of feedback for rule violations (none, vocal, visual, vocal and visual) in two preschool classes and found that vocal feedback was required to substantially reduce disruptive behavior. Foley, Dozier, and Lessor (2019) conducted a compo- nent analysis of the traditional GBG (rules, feedback, criterion, reinforcer) in one preschool

P. RAYMOND JOSLYN et al.812

class. They evaluated rules alone, and then sequentially added feedback, a criterion, and noncontingent reinforcement prior to implementing the GBG. Disruptive behavior decreased only when the entire GBG package was implemented (rules, feedback, criterion, contingent reinforcement). Future component analyses and manipulations may be helpful for improving GBG efficiency, fading the proce- dure over time, and exploring the potential of population-specific component effects. Other GBG variations have been used but

not systematically evaluated. For example, the original GBG divided the class into two teams, but subsequent researchers have used multiple teams (e.g., Spilt et al., 2013) or one team when the class size was small (e.g., Joslyn, Vol- lmer, & Kronfli, 2019). Studies have also var- ied in the ways that the criterion for winning the game has been selected (e.g., teacher- or experimenter-selected; Sy, Gratz, & Donaldson, 2016) or communicated to students. Some researchers have not disclosed the criterion for winning until the end (e.g., Wahl et al., 2016), while others announced the criterion from the outset (e.g., Sy et al., 2016). One study (Donaldson et al., 2018) piloted the feasibility of having students implement the GBG, suggesting one potential way to reduce teacher effort. In most studies, the GBG is implemented by teachers, but it has also been implemented by experimenters. Although mea- surements of treatment integrity vary and are not always collected, teachers’ treatment integ- rity is often lower than that of experimenters, but produces similar reductions in problem behavior (Joslyn & Vollmer, in press). Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of these variations on the efficacy, efficiency, and acceptability of the game.

NOVEL DATA COLLECTION

Researchers have begun to collect data on some potentially important indirect effects.

Three recent studies have shown data on indi- vidual student behavior in addition to, or instead of, group-level aggregates (Donaldson et al., 2017; Foley et al., 2019; Groves & Aus- tin, 2017). Although most individuals’ behavior matched the aggregated outcomes, Donaldson et al. (2017) and Foley et al. (2019) identified some individual nonresponders, leading Dona- ldson et al. to suggest using the GBG as a class-wide screening tool to identify students who may require individualized interventions. Similarly, nonresponders might respond to sub- tle variations of the GBG (e.g., selecting rein- forcers based on preference assessments). Other researchers have examined the mainte-

nance of GBG effects after the game ended (e.g., Donaldson, Wiskow, & Soto, 2015). These studies have indicated that the target behavior did not improve or worsen during activities immediately following the GBG, suggesting that (a) teachers should implement the GBG during any activities in which disrup- tive behavior is likely and (b) teachers can implement the GBG at targeted times through- out the day without causing increased disrup- tive behavior during nontargeted activities. Implementing the GBG may have side

effects on teacher behavior. Recent research has shown increases in teacher delivery of praise rel- ative to reprimands during the GBG (e.g., Rubow, Vollmer, & Joslyn, 2018). Understanding the changes in teacher–student interactions as a function of the GBG is an important area for future research to help eluci- date some of the potential mechanisms for the reported longitudinal effects.

POTENTIAL MECHANISMS

The GBG involves multiple components and likely has several mechanisms underlying its effects. One component of the GBG is tell- ing the students specific rules about how to behave to win the game, likely harnessing rule- governed behavior. The game itself is designed

813GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME

as a full-session differential-reinforcement-of low-rates schedule in which students earn puta- tive reinforcers for engaging in fewer than a specified number of responses. Points may serve a dual function as both discriminative stimuli and conditioned reinforcers or punishers. That is, the number of points a team has earned in isolation or in comparison with the other team(s) is discriminative for the availability of the reinforcer for winning the game. The asso- ciation between points and the terminal rein- forcer may condition points as reinforcers or punishers, depending on the variant of the game played. Because the GBG is typically an

interdependent group contingency in which the behavior of all team members affects reinforcer delivery, peer-mediated contingencies likely contribute to its effectiveness. Groves and Aus- tin (2019) found that the GBG evoked appro- priate peer interaction and support. However, more research is needed to examine how the GBG affects peer interactions and whether changes in peer interactions could elucidate mechanisms responsible for long-term behav- ioral improvements following the GBG (Groves & Austin, 2019), including reduced drug use and risky sexual behavior in adulthood (Kellam et al., 2014). Reductions in problem behavior associated

with the GBG may increase a child’s access to social reinforcement from teachers, peers, and parents. Some evidence suggests that long- term reductions in aggression are mediated by improving at-risk children’s acceptance by their peers (e.g., Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2013). However, Breeman et al. (2016) reported no improvements in peer acceptance for children with psychiatric disor- ders during the school year in which they experienced the GBG, despite reductions in problem behavior. In addition, research has indicated that the effects of the GBG may not generalize to settings in which it is not being implemented (e.g., Donaldson et al.,

2015). Future research should investigate how early exposure to the GBG may produce desirable long-term effects.

SUMMARY

Although the GBG has been studied using a variety of methods and in various contexts, there is still much to be learned. Some impor- tant future directions include: (a) evaluating the GBG with novel populations, settings, and behaviors, (b) further exploring the effects of procedural variations on efficiency, efficacy, and acceptability, (c) using novel data collec- tion methods to capture indirect effects, and (d) attempting to isolate and clarify the mecha- nisms responsible for behavior change and long-term effects.

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

Breeman, L. D., van Lier, P. A., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., Maras, A., . . . Tick, N. T. (2016). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on the behavioral, emotional, and social prob- lems of children with psychiatric disorders in special education settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1098300715593466

Cheatham, J. M., Ozga, J. E., St. Peter, C. C., Mesches, G. A., & Owsiany, J. M. (2017). Increasing class participation in college classrooms with the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864- 017-9266-7

Donaldson, J. M., Fisher, A. B., & Kahng, S. (2017). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on individual student behavior. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/ bar0000016

Donaldson, J. M., Matter, A., & Wiskow, K. M. (2018). Feasibility of and teacher preference for student-led implementation of the Good Behavior Game in early elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jaba.432

P. RAYMOND JOSLYN et al.814

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

Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C., & Vega Jr, R. (2014). 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

Foley, E., Dozier, C., & Lessor, A. (2019). Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a pre- school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.506

Galbraith, L. A., & Normand, M. P. (2017). Step it up! Using the Good Behavior Game to increase physical activity with elementary school students at recess. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 856-860. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.402

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

Groves, E. A., & Austin, J. L. (2019). Does the Good Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Ana- lyses in primary and secondary school classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 3-16. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jaba.513

Joslyn, P. R., & Vollmer, T. R. (in press). Efficacy of teacher-implemented Good Behavior Game despite low treatment integrity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Joslyn, P. R., Vollmer, T. R., & Hernández, V. (2014). Implementation of the Good Behavior Game in class- rooms for children with delinquent behavior. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 4, 1673-1682. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2007-4719(14)70973-1

Joslyn, P. R., Vollmer, T. R., & Kronfli, F. R. (2019). Interdependent group contingencies reduce disrup- tion in alternative high school classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09321-0

Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Mackenzie, A. C., Brown, C. H., Ompad, D. C., Or, F., . . .

Windham, A. (2014). The impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom-based preven- tive intervention in first and second grades, on high- risk sexual behaviors and drug abuse and dependence disorders into young adulthood. Prevention Science, 15, 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007. 10.009

Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2013). The role of children’s on-task behavior in the prevention of aggressive behavior development and peer rejection: A randomized controlled study of the Good Behavior Game in Belgian elementary class- rooms. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.12.006

Rubow, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., & Joslyn, R. R. (2018). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior in an alternative school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 382-392. https://doi. org/10.1002/jaba.455

Spilt, J. L., Koot, J. M., & van Lier, P. A. (2013). For whom does it work? Subgroup differences in the effects of a school-based universal prevention pro- gram. Prevention Science, 14, 479-488. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-012-0329-7

Sy, J. R., Gratz, O., & Donaldson, J. M. (2016). The Good Behavior Game with students in alternative educational environments: Interactions between rein- forcement criteria and scoring accuracy. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 455-477. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10864-016-9257-0

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644220

Wiskow, K. M., Matter, A., & Donaldson, J. M. (2019). The Good Behavior Game in preschool classrooms: An evaluation of feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.506

Received February 2, 2018 Final acceptance March 19, 2019 Action Editor, Claire St. Peter

815GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME

Copyright of Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.