Association for Behavior Analysis International

This symposium features four research presentations that will focus on applications of group contingencies in school settings. The first presentation will demonstrate the use of synchronous delivery of music within an interdependent group contingency to increase toy clean up behavior of small groups of preschoolers. The second presentation will discuss the effects of and student preference for different forms of feedback delivery (i.e., vocal, visual and no feedback) during the Good Behavior Game (GBG) with three, fifth grade classrooms. The third study will discuss the effects of the GBG with rule statements only (i.e., no reward) and GBG with a reinforcement contingency (i.e., winners get a reward) with four classrooms. The fourth study will discuss the effects of the GBG under different reward contingencies (i.e., immediate, delayed, and no reward) on behavior of individual students in three classrooms. Presenters will discuss clinical implications and future direction in each of the discussed areas.

Researchers and practitioners working in school settings.

Instructions to clean up may evoke problem behavior or noncompliance (Wilder et al., 2007). Although individualized treatment procedures for increasing clean-up are available to clinicians (e.g., differential reinforcement, token economies, response cost procedures), a group contingency may be more manageable in environments where one-on-one intervention is not feasible (e.g., classroom, group homes, day service providers, etc.). Group contingencies are often used in classroom management systems (Groves & Austin, 2017) and are relatively easy for teachers to implement (Hine et al., 2015). One schedule of reinforcement that may lend itself particularly useful within a group contingency is synchronous reinforcement (SSR; Diaz de Villegas, 2020). In the current evaluation, we extended research on SSR by evaluating the efficacy of synchronous music delivery within an interdependent group contingency for increasing toy cleanup behavior after play of small groups of preschool children. Additionally, we analyzed peer-directed vocal side effects (i.e., positive vocal interactions, negative vocal interactions, and prompts to clean up) that occurred during the evaluation. Results demonstrated that SSR within the group contingency successfully increased cleanup for all participants; however, additional modifications (i.e., SSR contingency training and an individualized SSR contingency with preferred videos) were needed for two participants.

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an effective procedure for reducing disruptive classroom behavior. In Experiment 1, students in 3 fifth grade classes selected the rules of the GBG and then experienced the GBG with different forms of feedback delivery for rule violations (i.e., vocal and visual, vocal only, visual only, no feedback) on disruptive classroom behavior in a multielement design. All versions of the GBG substantially reduced disruptive behavior below baseline levels. Additionally, in 1 of 3 classes, losing the GBG produced an increase in negative peer interactions immediately following the GBG. In Experiment 2, students selected which condition from Experiment 1 they would experience each session in a group arrangement concurrent chains preference assessment. The condition nominated most often by students in all classes at all opportunities was the GBG version that included both visual and vocal feedback. Implications of findings and future directions will be further discussed.

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an evidence-based classroom management packaged intervention that has been shown to reduce disruptive classroom behavior in a variety of academic settings. In typical application, the GBG utilizes an interdependent group contingency, and the teacher explains to the students which contingencies are in place and how they relate to behavior (i.e., a rule statement is provided). This approach provides at least two potential explanations for resultant behavior change: (a) contact with a reinforcement contingency or (b) students behaving in accordance with rule statements. To address this question, the current study evaluated the efficacy of GBG in the presence and absence of a reinforcement contingency (i.e., rule statement plus contingency or rule statement only) across four classrooms. Results of the study indicated that the reinforcement contingency was a necessary component to yield maximum behavior change. Results are discussed as they relate to implementation of GBG and its component parts.