Effects of Systematically Removing Components of the Good Behavior Game in Preschool Classrooms

  • Jeanne M. DonaldsonEmail author
  • Erica D. Lozy
  • Mallorie Galjour
Original Paper


Disruptive classroom behavior produces a host of problems for students and teachers. The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an effective procedure to reduce disruptive behavior. In this study, experimenters conducted the GBG in two preschool classes and demonstrated its effectiveness using a reversal design. Subsequently, experimenters systematically removed components of the GBG in a multiple baseline across classes design. Several features of the GBG were successfully removed without a return of disruptive behavior. Vocal feedback could not be removed in either class without disruptive behavior increasing. These data demonstrate one potential way to reduce teacher effort while maintaining the effects of the GBG.


Classroom management Component analysis Disruptive behavior Group contingency Good Behavior Game 



We thank Taylor Rushing, Aubrey Ticer, Katherine Lantier, and Sarah Holmes for their assistance with data collection and conducting sessions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Louisiana State University Institutional Review Board (IRB#3776) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124. Scholar
  2. Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on troublesome classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31, 45–60. Scholar
  3. Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2016). Promoting positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 18, 180–190. Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Check-in/check-out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 315–326. Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dadakhodjaeva, K., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A., & Dart, E. H. (2019). Effects of daily and reduced frequency implementation of the Good Behavior Game in kindergarten classrooms. Behavior Modification. Scholar
  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. Scholar
  8. Donaldson, J. M., Matter, A. L., & 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. Scholar
  9. 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. Scholar
  10. 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. Scholar
  11. Embry, D. D. (2002). The Good Behavior Game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 273–297. Scholar
  12. Foley, E., Dozier, C., & Lessor, A. (2019). Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 84–104. Scholar
  13. Greenwood, C. R., Hops, H., Delquadri, J., & Guild, J. (1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in classroom management: A further analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 413–425. Scholar
  14. Groves, E. A., & Austin, J. L. (2019). Does the Good Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Analysis in primary and secondary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 3–16. Scholar
  15. 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. Scholar
  16. Joslyn, P. R., Donaldson, J. M., Austin, J. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (2019a). The Good Behavior: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Scholar
  17. Joslyn, P. R., Vollmer, T. R., & Kronfli, F. R. (2019b). Interdependent group contingencies reduce disruption in alternative high school classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education. Scholar
  18. Louisiana Department of Education. (2019). Feb 2018 Multi stats (Total by Site and School System). Retrieved August 16, 2019 from
  19. McLeod, J. D., & Kaiser, K. (2004). Childhood emotional and behavioral problems and educational attainment. American Sociological Review, 69, 636–658. Scholar
  20. Newcomer, A. R., Roth, K. B., Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Ialongo, N. S., Hart, S. R., et al. (2016). Higher childhood peer reports of social preference mediates the impact of the Good Behavior Game on suicide attempt. Prevention Science, 17, 145–156. Scholar
  21. Odom, S. L., Hoyson, M., Jamieson, B., & Strain, P. S. (1985). Increasing handicapped preschoolers’ peer social interactions: Cross-setting and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 3–16. Scholar
  22. Parker, R. I., & Brossart, D. F. (2003). Evaluating single-case research data: A comparison of seven statistical methods. Behavior Therapy, 34, 189–211. Scholar
  23. Pennington, B., & McComas, J. J. (2017). Effects of the Good Behavior Game across classroom contexts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 176–180. Scholar
  24. Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., et al. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9, 144–159. Scholar
  25. Ramirez, L. H., Hawkins, R. O., Collins, T. A., Ritter, C., & Haydon, T. (2019). Generalizing the effects of group contingencies across instructional settings for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. School Psychology Review, 48, 98–112. Scholar
  26. Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. (2010). The impact of parents, child care providers, teachers and peers on early externalizing trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 555–583. Scholar
  27. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367. Scholar
  28. Sy, J. R., Gratz, O., & Donaldson, J. M. (2016). The Good Behavior Game with students in alternative educational environments: Interactions between reinforcement criteria and scoring accuracy. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 455–477. Scholar
  29. 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. Scholar
  30. Thorne, S., & Kamps, D. (2008). The effects of a group contingency intervention on academic engagement and problem behavior of at-risk students. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 12–18. Scholar
  31. 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, 105–115. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.University of South WalesPontypriddUK

Personalised recommendations