An interdependent group-managed response-cost system mediated by free tokens was employed to decrease the inappropriate verbalizations of two groups of students labeled learning disabled. Results showed that this contingency system was a viable and effective method of decreasing inappropriate behavior. Reasons for the effectiveness of the treatment procedure are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP.A.TroutmanA.C. (1982). Applied behavior analysis for teachers: Influencing student performance. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
2.
AxelrodS. (1973). Comparison of individual and group contingencies in two special classes. Behavior Therapy, 4, 83–90.
3.
BaerD.M.WolfM.M.RisleyT.F. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
4.
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.
5.
DeitzS.M.ReppA.C. (1973). Decreasing classroom misbehaviors through the use of DRL schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 457–463.
6.
DrabmanR.S.SpitalnikR.O'LearyK.D. (1973). Teaching self-control to disruptive children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 10–16.
7.
GambleA.StrainP.S. (1979). The effects of dependent and interdependent group contingencies on socially appropriate responses in classes for emotionally handicapped children. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 253–260.
8.
GrandyG.S.MadsenC.H.DeMerssemanI.M. (1973). The effects of individual and interdependent contingencies on inappropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 488–493.
9.
GreenwoodC.R.HopsH. (1981). Group-oriented contingencies and peer behavior change. In StrainP.S. (Ed.), The utilization of classroom peers and behavior change agents (pp. 189–259). New York: Plenum.)
10.
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.
11.
GreshamF.M.GreshamG.N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110.
12.
HayesL.A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628–648.
LitowL.PumroyD.K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.
15.
LovittT.C. (1973). Self-management projects with children with behavioral disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 15–28.
16.
RosenbaumM.S.DrabmanR.S. (1979). Self-control training in the classroom: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 467–485.
17.
SalendS.J.EhrlichE. (1983). Involving students in behavior modification programs. Mental Retardation, 21, 95–100.
18.
SalendS.J.KovalichB. (1981). A group response-cost system mediated by free tokens: An alternative to token reinforcement. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 184–187.
19.
SchmidtG.W.UlrichR.E. (1969). Effects of group contingent events upon classroom noise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 171–179.
20.
SolomonR.W.WahlerR.G. (1973). Peer reinforcement control of classroom problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 49–56.
21.
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.
22.
SwitzerB.DealT.E.BaileyJ.S. (1972). The reduction of stealing in second graders using group contingency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 267–272.
23.
WilsonS.H.WilliamsR.L. (1973). The effects of group contingencies on first graders' academic and social behaviors. Journal of School Psychology, 11, 110–117.
