Stimulus presentation versus stimulus removal in the Good Behavior Game

Silva et al. (2020) tested two ways to run the Good Behavior Game in a second-grade class. One way added tokens for good behavior. The other way removed tokens for disruptions.

They flipped the two games across days for six weeks. The teacher tracked disruptions and later asked kids which game they liked best.

Both games cut disruptions by about the same amount. Kids were quiet and on task almost a large share of the time.

Most kids and the teacher picked the removal game. Taking tokens away felt clearer and faster to them.

Siegel et al. (1970) showed the first Head-Start token class fifty years ago. They also saw that taking tokens away quickly dropped hand-raising and other responses. Silva’s study repeats that old finding with the Good Behavior Game.

Ortega et al. (2015) used the same flip-flop design with babies and toys. Adding mom’s attention beat toy-only, just like adding tokens can beat nothing. The design link shows the method travels across ages.

Davis et al. (1972) argued token systems are mini economies. Silva gives live proof: tokens moved fast whether they came or went, just like coins in a market.

You can run the Good Behavior Game either way and get the same calm class. If you want quick buy-in, try the removal version: hand out four tokens to each table, then take one when you see a disruption. Kids see the loss right away and stay on task. No extra prizes needed.