Stimulus presentation versus stimulus removal in the Good Behavior Game

被引:4
|
作者
Silva, Erika [1 ]
Wiskow, Katie M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Calif State Univ Stanislaus, Turlock, CA 95382 USA
关键词
classroom management; disruptive behavior; good behavior game; punishment; response cost; RESPONSE COST; DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR; TOKEN REINFORCEMENT; PREFERENCE; CONTINGENCIES; STUDENT;
D O I
10.1002/jaba.709
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an effective intervention to reduce disruptive behavior. The GBG typically involves immediate stimulus presentation (e.g.., delivery of a token) following disruptions; however, experimenters have also removed tokens contingent upon disruptions. In the present study, we compared the effects of the GBG-stimulus presentation (P) and GBG-stimulus removal (R) on levels of disruptions in a 2nd-grade general education classroom. In addition, we measured student prompts, teacher praise and correctives, and student and teacher preference. The GBG-P and GBG-R versions of the game were similarly effective in reducing disruptions. However, the teacher chose to implement the GBG-R and the majority of students reported a preference for the GBG-R.
引用
收藏
页码:2186 / 2198
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Stimulus-response versus stimulus-stimulus-response learning in cerebellar patients
    Richter, S
    Matthies, K
    Ohde, T
    Dimitrova, A
    Gizewski, E
    Beck, A
    Aurich, V
    Timmann, D
    EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 2004, 158 (04) : 438 - 449
  • [12] Inducing perceptual unawareness: Tachistoscopic stimulus presentation versus visual masking
    Fischmeister, F. Ph. S.
    Schoepf, V.
    Kasess, C. H.
    Windischberger, C.
    Moser, E.
    Bauer, H.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2010, 77 (03) : 324 - 325
  • [13] Stimulus-response versus stimulus-stimulus-response learning in cerebellar patients
    S. Richter
    K. Matthies
    T. Ohde
    A. Dimitrova
    E. Gizewski
    A. Beck
    V. Aurich
    D. Timmann
    Experimental Brain Research, 2004, 158 : 438 - 449
  • [14] Slow potential topographic activities with stereoscopic versus monoscopic stimulus presentation
    Bauer, H
    Lamm, C
    Adelbauer, G
    Leodolter, M
    Leodolter, U
    Guttmann, G
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 1998, 30 (1-2) : 210 - 210
  • [15] EFFECT OF UNILATERAL STIMULUS PRESENTATION ON COMPONENTS OF STIMULUS-PRECEDING NEGATIVITY
    Ohgami, Yoshimi
    Kotani, Yasunori
    Arai, Jun-ichiro
    Kiryu, Shigeru
    Inoue, Yusuke
    PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2015, 52 : S72 - S72
  • [16] EFFECT OF TRAINING, STIMULUS CONTEXT, AND MODE OF STIMULUS PRESENTATION ON EMPATHY RATINGS
    FRIDMAN, MS
    STONE, SC
    JOURNAL OF COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY, 1978, 25 (02) : 131 - 136
  • [17] Differential derived stimulus relations across probe-trial versus adduction testing are not a function of comparison-stimulus presentation
    Doughty, Adam H.
    Soydan, Jenna A.
    BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES, 2019, 166
  • [18] REMOVAL AND RESTORATION OF STIMULUS CONTROL
    STODDARD, LT
    SIDMAN, M
    JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR, 1971, 16 (02) : 143 - +
  • [19] STIMULUS SIMILARITY AND SEQUENCE OF STIMULUS-PRESENTATION IN PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING
    ROTHKOPF, EZ
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1958, 56 (02): : 114 - 122
  • [20] The Effects of Stimulus Modality and Frequency of Stimulus Presentation on Cross-modal Distraction
    Mayer, A. R.
    Franco, A. R.
    Canive, J.
    Harrington, D. L.
    CEREBRAL CORTEX, 2009, 19 (05) : 993 - 1007