The present study evaluated the effectiveness of two variations of a token economy for reducing disruptive behavior within a general education classroom. One variation involved a group contingency in which tokens were removed contingent on disruptive behavior (response cost), and the other variation involved a group contingency in which tokens were gained according to a differential reinforcement of other behavior schedule. Two elementary school teachers and their students participated. Results indicated that both procedures were effective in reducing the overall number of students disrupting; however, both teachers and students indicated a greater preference for the response cost condition. Implications for the use of these behavior management strategies in the classroom are discussed in terms of effectiveness and ease of implementation.
AxelrodS. (1998). How to use group contingencies. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
2.
BarrishH. H.SaundersM.WolfM. 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.
3.
ConyersC.MiltenbergerR.MakiA.BarenzR.JurgensM.SailerA.. . . KoppB. (2004). A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 411-415.
4.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
5.
DrabmanR.SpitalnikR.SpitalnikK. (1974). Sociometric and disruptive behavior as a function of four types of token reinforcement programs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 93-101.
6.
HarlanJ. C.RowlandS. T. (2002). Behavior management strategies for teachers: Achieving instructional effectiveness, student success, and student motivation—Every teacher and any student can! (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
7.
HayesL. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 628-648.
8.
HeeringP. W.WilderD. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 29, 459-468.
9.
HulacD. M.BensonN. (2010). The use of group contingencies for preventing and managing disruptive behaviors. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 257-262.
10.
KaufmanK. F.O’LearyK. D. (1972). Reward, cost, and self-evaluation procedures for disruptive adolescents in a psychiatric hospital school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 293-309.
11.
KazdinA. E. (2011). Single-case research designs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
KirbyK. C.KerwinM. E.CarpenedoC. M.RosenwasserB. J.GardnerR. S. (2008). Interdependent group contingency management for cocaine-dependent methadone maintenance patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 579-595.
13.
LitowL.PumroyD. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.
14.
LittleE. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ problem behaviours. Educational Psychology, 25, 369-377.
15.
MacciomeiN. R. (1999). Effective approaches for schoolwide and classroom behavior management. In MacciomeiN. R.RubenD. H. (Ed.), Behavioral management in the public schools: An urban approach (pp. 85-100). Westport, CT: Praeger.
16.
McGoeyK. E.DuPaulG. L. (2000). Token reinforcement and response cost procedures: Reducing the disruptive behavior of preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 330-343.
17.
MedlandM. B.StachnikT. J. (1972). Good-behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 45-51.
18.
MiltenbergerR. G. (2012). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
19.
PutnamR. F.HandlerM. W.Ramirez-PlattC. M.LuiselliJ. K. (2003). Improving student bus-riding behavior through a whole-school intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 583-590.
20.
SulzbacherS. I.HouserJ. E. (1968). A tactic to eliminate disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Group contingent consequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 88-90.
21.
WardW. D. (1991). Applied behavior analysis in the classroom: The development of student competence. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
