An evaluation of interdependent and independent group contingencies during the good behavior game
Pick the team Good Behavior Game for fast student buy-in, but keep it running so the calm behavior lasts.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Groves et al. (2017) tested two ways to run the Good Behavior Game.
One way made the whole team earn the reward together. The other way let each child earn alone.
They flipped the two styles every day in a class of kids with emotional and behavior disorders.
What they found
Both styles cut disruptive behavior about the same.
When kids picked, most liked the team version where everyone had to behave to win.
How this fits with other research
Vargo et al. (2020) later tried the same game with high-schoolers with autism. They swapped paper points for phone apps like ClassDojo. Both tech and paper worked, just like Groves found.
Two big meta-analyses, Kok et al. (2026) and van der Miesen et al. (2024), pool many classroom studies. They show teacher-run plans like the Good Behavior Game help during class time, yet the gains can fade once the plan stops.
So Groves’ positive result is real, but you may need to keep the game going or bring it back to hold the change.
Why it matters
You can run the Good Behavior Game either way and still see calmer behavior. If you want quick student buy-in, choose the interdependent team format. Keep an eye on maintenance; plan booster rounds so the wins stick.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start the day with a team GBG: set one rule, one class goal, and a 5-minute fun reward.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) uses an interdependent group contingency to improve classroom behavior. Despite the wealth of research on the effectiveness of the GBG, some teachers may have concerns about their students' abilities to work in teams, particularly if they have a history of poor social skills. We used an alternating treatments design to compare the relative effectiveness of the GBG with interdependent and independent group contingencies in a classroom for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Our results showed that both versions of the GBG reduced verbal disruptions, inappropriate sitting, and off-task behaviors for all children. However, the majority of children preferred the interdependent arrangement. We discuss how these results may promote more widespread use of the GBG with children with substantial behavioral challenges.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2017 · doi:10.1002/jaba.393