Rosie N. Cooper, Margaret R. Gifford, Kayla C. Crook, Joel E. Ringdahl, Abby M. Overstreet, Victoria Hutchinson, Dan Mangum
{"title":"良好行为博弈中奖励随变和规则陈述的评价","authors":"Rosie N. Cooper, Margaret R. Gifford, Kayla C. Crook, Joel E. Ringdahl, Abby M. Overstreet, Victoria Hutchinson, Dan Mangum","doi":"10.1177/10983007251339159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an evidence-based classroom management intervention 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). Given this approach, behavior may change for at least two reasons. First, behavior contacts the reward contingency in place during the GBG. Second, student’s behavior occurs as a function of rule governance (i.e., previous experience with rule statements). In an effort to evaluate which mechanism may be responsible for behavior change during the GBG, the current study used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design to evaluate behavior during the GBG in the presence and absence of a reward contingency (i.e., rule statement plus contingency or rule statement only) across four second grade classrooms in the Southeastern U.S. Results of the study indicated the reward contingency was a necessary component to yield maximum behavior change. Results are discussed as they relate to implementation of the GBG and its component parts.","PeriodicalId":47652,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of Reward Contingencies and Rule Statements Within the Good Behavior Game\",\"authors\":\"Rosie N. Cooper, Margaret R. Gifford, Kayla C. Crook, Joel E. Ringdahl, Abby M. Overstreet, Victoria Hutchinson, Dan Mangum\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10983007251339159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an evidence-based classroom management intervention 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). Given this approach, behavior may change for at least two reasons. First, behavior contacts the reward contingency in place during the GBG. Second, student’s behavior occurs as a function of rule governance (i.e., previous experience with rule statements). In an effort to evaluate which mechanism may be responsible for behavior change during the GBG, the current study used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design to evaluate behavior during the GBG in the presence and absence of a reward contingency (i.e., rule statement plus contingency or rule statement only) across four second grade classrooms in the Southeastern U.S. Results of the study indicated the reward contingency was a necessary component to yield maximum behavior change. Results are discussed as they relate to implementation of the GBG and its component parts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007251339159\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007251339159","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
An Evaluation of Reward Contingencies and Rule Statements Within the Good Behavior Game
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an evidence-based classroom management intervention 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). Given this approach, behavior may change for at least two reasons. First, behavior contacts the reward contingency in place during the GBG. Second, student’s behavior occurs as a function of rule governance (i.e., previous experience with rule statements). In an effort to evaluate which mechanism may be responsible for behavior change during the GBG, the current study used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design to evaluate behavior during the GBG in the presence and absence of a reward contingency (i.e., rule statement plus contingency or rule statement only) across four second grade classrooms in the Southeastern U.S. Results of the study indicated the reward contingency was a necessary component to yield maximum behavior change. Results are discussed as they relate to implementation of the GBG and its component parts.
期刊介绍:
...offers sound, research-based principles of positive behavior support for use in school, home and community settings with people with challenges in behavioral adaptation. Regular features include empirical research; discussion, literature reviews, and conceptual papers; programs, practices, and innovations; forum; and media reviews.