Behavior modification in the classroom: a rejoinder to Winett and Winkler.
Always audit the social validity of your classroom target before you reinforce it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Byrd (1972) wrote a reply to critics of classroom behavior modification.
He told teachers and BCBAs to stop and ask: “Is this behavior worth changing?”
The paper is short, fiery, and all about social validity—does the goal really help the kid?
What they found
No new data. Just a warning: if we only chase quiet hands and straight rows, we may miss what matters.
The author says we should pick targets that make the child’s life better, not the teacher’s life easier.
How this fits with other research
Clark et al. (1970) showed that candy and tokens can raise visual attending by 50 % in deaf students. Byrd (1972) cheers the power, but adds: “Ask first— is more attending useful?”
Perone (2003) later showed that even “positive” reinforcement can back-fire by creating satiation or blind compliance. Both papers share the same guard-rail: check the side effects.
Giangreco (2010) extended the warning to paraprofessionals. One-to-one aides can boost on-task behavior, yet the same study asks: “Does the aide block peer friendships?” The echo of Byrd (1972) is clear—measure social validity, not just behavior change.
Why it matters
Next time you write a behavior plan, pause for thirty seconds. Ask the student, the teacher, and the parent: “If this goal is met, will life improve?” Only then write the reinforcement procedure. That quick habit keeps ABA humane and keeps you off the compliance treadmill.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one current goal on your caseload and survey two stakeholders: “Will hitting this goal really help the student?” If the answer is weak, revise the goal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Winett and Winkler aptly criticized the "appropriate" behaviors that behavior modifiers have chosen to change. However, after reviewing 14 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis articles concerning behavior modification in the classroom, they made the sweeping over-generalization that "as currently practised, behavior modification has done very little to change the deplorable state of our schools." Finally, they suggest a free classroom in which learning is accompanied by "singing, laughing, and whistling." A number of studies not mentioned by Winett and Winkler are here presented to illustrate the innovative ways in which behavior modification has been utilized to change the complexion of classrooms from the elementary school to the college level. A strawman model child as purportedly seen by behavior modifiers was built by Winett and Winkler, but this author could not find one instance in the literature where the teacher or behavior modifier desired the behavior thus depicted by the straw-man model child. Furthermore, this author questions the desirability of the "informal" or "free" classroom approach for children with marked social and academic problems. Nonetheless, the general admonition of Winett and Winkler should definitely by taken seriously-namely the behavior modifier should seriously question the behaviors he is being asked to change. Finally, a possible integration of reinforcement principles and some aspects of the informal school are discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1972 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1972.5-505