article summary

  

Paper Requirements

• APA Format throughout; especially for all in-text citations and references

• Double-spaced, no space between paragraphs

• 2-point Times New Roman or Arial font 

• 1-inch margins, Align Left

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

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

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom management system that employs an interde-
pendent group contingency, whereby students work as a team to win the game. Although previ-
ous anecdotal data have suggested that this arrangement may promote prosocial behavior,
teachers may have concerns about its fairness and potential to evoke negative peer interactions
(especially toward students who break the rules). We evaluated disruptive behaviors and social
interactions during the GBG in a secondary classroom for students with emotional and behav-
ioral disorders, as well as in a primary classroom for students with mild developmental disabil-
ities. Results indicate that the GBG reduced disruptive behaviors; further, negative peer
interactions decreased and positive interactions increased when the game was being played.
Social validity results indicate that the majority of students thought the interdependent group
contingency was fair.
Key words: Good Behavior Game, classroom management, peer interactions, peer pressure,

emotional and behavioral disorders

The Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish,
Saunders, & Wolf, 1969) is a well-established
classroom management intervention with a
wealth of empirical evidence to support its use
in reducing disruptions and promoting on-task
behavior (see Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Mue-
thing, & Vega, 2014a, for a review). The GBG
involves setting classroom rules that students
must follow to win the game. In most versions
of the game, violating rules results in receiving
points against the team (e.g., Barrish et al.,
1969; Donaldson, Vollmer, Krous, Downs, &
Berard, 2011; Harris & Sherman, 197

3

;
Mitchell, Tingstrom, Dufrene, Ford, & Ster-
ling, 2015). Other versions have taken a less
punitive approach, whereby rule following

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

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

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

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

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

© 2018 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

3

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

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

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

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

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

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN4

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

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

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

METHOD

Participants and Setting
The study was conducted in two schools in

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

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

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

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

5PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

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

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

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

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

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

Table

1

Student Demographic Information

Classroom Name Age Sex Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN6

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

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

Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement (IOA) for positive

and negative peer interactions and swearing was

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

Experimental Procedures
Baseline. During baseline, teachers were

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

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

7PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

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

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

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

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

announced criterion for each game was deemed

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN8

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

Experimental Design
The effects of the independent variable were

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

Treatment Integrity
During each GBG session, the primary data

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

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

Social Validity
The social validity of the goals, procedures,

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

RESULTS

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

9PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

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

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

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

–

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

–

10

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

S
w

earin
g

per

m
in

Swearing

O
ff

-t
as

k
be

h
av

io
r

(%
o

f
in

te
rv

al

s)

Off Task

-0.1

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Negative
Interaction

Positive
Interaction

P
ee

r
in

te
ra

ct
io

n
s

pe
r

m
in

Baseline GBGGBG Baseline

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

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

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

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN10

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

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

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

D
is

ru
pt

iv
e

be
h

av
io

r
(%

o
f

in
te

rv
al

s)

Verbal
Disruption

Physical
Disruption

BaselineBaseline GBGGBG

-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
P
ee

r
in

te
ra
ct
io
n
s
pe
r
m
in
Negative
Interaction

Positive
Interaction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sessions

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

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

11PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

Table 2
Results of Teacher’s Social Validity Questionnaires

Number of Responses

Statement
Strongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly
disagree

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

1 0 1 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

Disruptive classroom behaviors decreased while playing the
Good Behavior Game.

2 0 0 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

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

1 1 0 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

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

0 2 0 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

I would recommend the Good Behavior Game to other
teachers.

2 0 0 0 0

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

2 0 0 0 0

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN12

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

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

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

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

Table 3
Results of Students’ Social Validity Questionnaires

Number of Responses

Statement Yes Maybe No

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

9 4 0

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

9 1 3

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

10 1 2

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

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

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

13PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN14

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

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

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15PEER INTERACTIONS DURING GROUP CONTINGENCIES

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-605

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.229

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-89

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314536781

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513507574

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513507574

https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197310)10:4%3C488::AID-PITS2310100420%3E3.0.CO;2-F

https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197310)10:4%3C488::AID-PITS2310100420%3E3.0.CO;2-F

https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197310)10:4%3C488::AID-PITS2310100420%3E3.0.CO;2-F

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.393

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.393

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-405

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-405

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugacldep.2008.01.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugacldep.2008.01.004

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445510392213

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445510392213

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341

https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.003

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMILY A. GROVES and JENNIFER L. AUSTIN16

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.35.3.1299

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.35.3.1299

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-13

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-13

https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.17.2.143

https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.17.2.143

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.357

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.357

https://doi.org/10.2307/1510380

https://doi.org/10.2307/1510380

https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455890131007

https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-533

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503261165

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644220

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711421008

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

METHOD
Participants and Setting
Response Definitions and Measurement
Interobserver Agreement
Experimental Procedures
Baseline
Good Behavior Game
Experimental Design
Treatment Integrity
Social Validity
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
References