This study was designed to extend the research on tootling interventions, which involves reinforcing students’ reporting of their peers’ incidental prosocial behaviors. Specifically, a withdrawal design was used to determine if a tootling intervention decreased antisocial/disrespectful interactions of four, teacher-nominated students in an after-school, third-grade classroom. Visual analysis of a repeated-measures graph and effect size estimates suggested that the tootling intervention decreased these interactions. Discussion focuses on future research designed to evaluate the generalizability of tootling interventions and the effects of similar interventions over time and across dependent variables.
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.
2.
BerganJ. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
3.
Bowman-PerrottL.BurkeM. D.ZainiS.ZangN.VannestK. (2016). Promoting positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 180–190.
4.
BrieschA. M.FergusonT. D.DanielsB.VolpeR. J.FeinbergA. B. (2017). Examining the influence of interval length on the dependability of observational estimates. School Psychology Review, 46, 426–432.
5.
CampbellS.SkinnerC. H. (2004). Combining explicit timing with interdependent group contingency program to decrease transition times: An investigation of the timely transitions game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 11–28.
6.
CashwellT. H.SkinnerC. H.SmithE. S. (2001). Increasing second-grade students’ reports of peers’ prosocial behavior via direct instruction, group reinforcement, and progress feedback: A replication and extension. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 161–175.
7.
CihakD. F.KirkE. R.BoonR. T. (2009). Effects of classwide positive peer “Tootling” to reduce the disruptive classroom behaviors of elementary students with and without disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 267–278.
8.
FarmerT. W.LaneK. L.LeeD. L.HammJ. V.LambertK. (2012). The social functions of antisocial behavior: Considerations for school violence prevention strategies for students with disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 149–162.
9.
FlowerA.McKennaJ. W.BunuanR. L.MuethingC. S.VegaR.Jr. (2014). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, 546–571.
10.
FudgeD. L.SkinnerC. H.WilliamsJ. L.CowdenD.ClarkJ.BlissS. L. (2008). The Color Wheel classroom management system: Increasing on-task behavior in every student in a second-grade classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 575–592.
11.
GoldiamondI. (1974). Toward a constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and constitutional issues raised by applied behavioral analysis. Behaviorism, 2, 1–85.
12.
GreenwoodC. R.HopsH.DelquadriJ.GuildJ. (1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in classroom management: A further analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 413–425.
13.
HayesS. C. (1985). Natural multiple baseline across persons: A reply to Harris and Jenson. Behavioral Assessment, 7,129–132.
14.
HeeringP. W.WilderD. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.
15.
HornerR. H.SugaiG. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 80–85.
16.
KazdinA. E. (2011). Single-case research design: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf
18.
LambertA. M.TingstromD. H.SterlingH. E.DufreneB. A.LynneS. (2015). Effects of tootling on classwide disruptive and appropriate behavior in upper-elementary students. Behavior Modification, 39, 413–430.
19.
LentzF. E. (1982). An empirical examination of the utility of partial interval and momentary time sampling as a measure of behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
20.
LitowL.PumroyD. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 8, 341–347.
21.
LumJ. D. K.TingstromD. H.DufreneB. A.RadleyK. C.LynneS. (2017). Effects of tootling on classwide disruptive and academically engaged behavior or general-education high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 370–384.
22.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A.FeemanJ.LombardiA.SimonsenB.CoyneM. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rate. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 205–212.
23.
MayerR. G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467–478.
24.
McCurdyM.SkinnerC. H.IgnacioP.Van MarrenV. (2018). The timely transitions game: Occasioning efficient transitions (pp. 29–62). In HawkinsR.NaborsL. (Eds.), Promoting prosocial behaviors in children through games and play: Making social emotional learning fun. New York, NY: Nova Science.
25.
McHughM. B.TingstromD. H.RadleyK. C.BarryC. T.WalkerK. M. (2016). Effects of tootling on classwide and individual disruptive and academically engaged behavior of lower-elementary students. Behavioral Interventions, 31, 332–354.
26.
PageD. P.EdwardsR. P. (1978). Behavior change strategies for reducing disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 413–418.
27.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.
28.
PopkinJ.SkinnerC. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 282–295.
29.
ScottK. C.SkinnerC. H.MooreT. C.McCurdyM.CiancioD.CihakD. (2017). Evaluating and comparing the effects of group contingencies on mathematics accuracy in a first-grade classroom: Class average criteria versus unknown small-group average criteria. School Psychology Review, 46, 262–271.
30.
SeymourF. W.StokesT. F. (1976). Self-recording in training girls to increase work and evoke staff praise in an institution for offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 41–54.
31.
ShapiroE. S. (1987). Behavioral assessment in School Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
SkinnerB. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
33.
SkinnerC. H.CashwellT. H.SkinnerA. L. (2000). Increasing tootling: The effects of a peer-monitored group contingency program on students’ reports of peers’ prosocial behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 263–270.
34.
SkinnerC. H.NeddenriepC. E.RobinsonS. L.ErvinR.JonesK. (2002). Altering educational environments through positive peer reporting: Prevention and remediation of social problems associated with behavior disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 191–202.
35.
SkinnerC. H.SkinnerC. H.BurtonB. (2009). Applying group-oriented contingencies in classrooms. In Akin-LittleK. A.LittleS. G.BrayM.KehleT. (Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies (pp. 157–170). Washington, DC: APA Press.
36.
SkinnerC. H.WatsonT. S. (2000). Randomized group contingencies: Lotteries in the classroom. The School Psychologist: Division of School Psychology, 54(2), 21–39.
37.
SlavinR. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 105–116.
38.
Sulzer-AzaroffB.MayerG. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
39.
WillsH. P.IwaszukW. M.KampsD.ShumateE. (2014). CW-FIT: Group contingency effects across the day. Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 191–210.
40.
WinettR. A.BattersbyC. D.EdwardsS. M. (1975). The effects of architectural change, individualized instruction, and group contingencies on the academic performance and social behavior of sixth graders. Journal of School Psychology, 13, 28–40.
41.
WinettR. A.WinklerR. C. (1972). Current behavior modification in the classroom: Be quiet, be docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 499–504.
42.
ZakszeskiB. N.HojnoskiR. L.WoodB. K. (2017). Considerations for time sampling interval durations in the measurement of young children’s classroom engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37, 42–53.
