The effects of the good behavior game on the conduct of regular education new york city high school students.

Lancioni et al. (2011) tested the Good Behavior Game in a regular New York City high school classroom. They used an ABAB reversal design. This means they turned the game on, off, on, and off again to see if behavior changed each time.

The students were neurotypical teens. The game split the class into two teams. Teams earned points for following rules and lost points for breaking rules.

When the game was on, seat leaving, talking without permission, and aggression dropped sharply. When the game was off, these behaviors rose again. The pattern repeated every time the game switched on or off.

The drops were large and immediate. The reversal design showed the game, not something else, caused the change.

Graham et al. (2024) extended the idea with the Good Inclusion Game. They used one big team instead of two competing teams. This tweak worked for mixed groups of kids with and without special needs.

Normand et al. (2020) used the same group-contingency trick to boost step counts in PE. Step counts doubled when the game was on, just like disruptions dropped in the 2011 study.

Perez et al. (2015) ran a similar class-wide game called Tootling. They also saw fewer disruptions and more prosocial behavior. The pattern held across two upper-elementary classrooms.

You can run the Good Behavior Game tomorrow. Pick two teams, post the rules, and start tallying points. When the whole team has to win together, peer pressure flips from trouble to helpful. Use the ABAB trick to prove it works: track disruptions for two days, start the game for two days, stop for two days, then bring it back. The graph will show your principal the game, not luck, changed behavior.