Competition Matters!

Spilles (2026) ran the Good Behavior Game two ways in four third- and fourth-grade rooms. Half the classes played the classic team version where teams compete for the best behavior score. The other half used a non-competitive version where the whole class works together to beat a daily point goal.

Each room played for 30 minutes a day for one school week. Before and after, every child filled out a peer rating sheet that asked, 'How much do you like to work with each classmate?'

Kids in the competitive rooms gained, on average, 12 percent more peer liking points than kids in the cooperative rooms. The competitive format also cut rule-breaking by half, but the big jump was in how often classmates picked each other as preferred partners.

Gains showed up after only five days, and every competitive room beat every cooperative room on the social score.

Joslyn et al. (2020) already showed that plain GBG lowers disruption even when teachers skip steps. Spilles adds that adding team-versus-team rivalry lifts social acceptance on top of behavior control.

Couto et al. (2023) found that cooperative group contingencies beat individual work in lab tasks. Spilles seems to disagree, but the gap is setting: the lab used adult volunteers with no social stakes, while the classroom study tapped real peer relationships.

Alkahtani et al. (2026) boosted social-emotional skills in preschool with a teacher-run SEL curriculum. Spilles extends that line by showing a quicker, game-based route for older kids.

If you run GBG, flip the switch to competitive mode. Same prep time, same rules, but you get an instant social bonus: kids like each other more. Try splitting the class into two color teams, post the scoreboard, and let them cheer for low disruption counts. One week may be enough to see warmer peer picks and smoother group work.