Good Behavior Game

Product or Programme · All products and programmes
Evidence · 7 claims (4 for, 3 mixed) · 4 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 causal, 1 review), q2–q3 · 3 of 4 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description

A classroom behavior-management programme originally developed at Johns Hopkins University in which students work in teams and receive recognition for meeting classroom behavior expectations, with implementations including PAX and AIR versions.

Components

• Good Behavior Game classroom management strategy: Good Behavior Game is "a specific classroom management strategy that aims to improve social skills, minimize disruptive behaviors, and create a positive learning environment." Teachers place students into teams and reward them for following classroom rules. It can be implemented as the PAX Good Behavior Game, the AIR version, or a local adaptation, and is used from prekindergarten through grade 12, often in classrooms showing high levels of disruptive behavior. (What Works Clearinghouse et al. (2023))

Claims

• Good Behavior Game improves student behavior, with a pooled effect size of 0.91 across 10 studies meeting WWC standards [+M]
• Good Behavior Game improves teacher practice related to student behavior, with a pooled effect size of 0.79 across two studies [+M]
• Good Behavior Game improves student writing conventions and writing productivity in one single-case study [+M]
• Good Behavior Game shows uncertain effects on intrapersonal competencies, with a pooled effect size of 0.14 that is not statistically significant [~W]
• Good Behavior Game shows uncertain effects on literacy achievement, with a pooled effect size of 0.07 that is not statistically significant [~W]
• Good Behavior Game shows uncertain effects on mathematics achievement, with an effect size of 0.26 that is not statistically significant [~W]
• Cooperative learning with group rewards and individual accountability [+W] — GBG shares the group-contingency structure; pairing it with academic team goals extends it from management to learning

Using it in practice

Instructions

1. Define 3–4 observable rules with the class and post them; model examples and non-examples of each rule.
2. Divide the class into balanced teams; consider Assigned Positions to give every student a role and reduce scapegoating.
3. Announce the criterion (e.g., fewer than 5 team marks) and the reward, keeping initial game periods short (5–10 minutes).
4. During the activity, mark infractions neutrally and visibly; avoid lecturing or singling out individuals.
5. At the end, deliver team rewards immediately and briefly; teams under criterion win.
6. Gradually lengthen game periods, raise criteria, and fade tangible rewards toward natural contingencies, consistent with Coaching feedback on teacher implementation fidelity.
7. Use brief Check-In routines to review team functioning and repair team climate when needed.

Requirements

• Explicitly stated, observable behavior rules (e.g., no out-of-seat, no talking out of turn)
• A visible tallying method and a criterion announced in advance
• A menu of team rewards deliverable immediately after the game period
• Balanced teams and a teacher routine for marking infractions neutrally, without shaming individuals

Constraints

• Rewards based solely on team outcomes can pressure or stigmatize students whose self-regulation is weakest; teams should be structured so no single student is scapegoated [~M]
• Overly strict criteria or long game periods early on produce frustration and can increase problem behavior [-M]
• Effects depend on consistent, neutral implementation; punitive or inconsistent marking erodes the peer-support mechanism [-M]
• Rewards that are too delayed or too weak fail to sustain behavior change [~M]

Related Products and Programmes

-

Key Sources

• What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Good Behavior Game. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/728
• Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119–124. doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119
• Embry, D. D. (2002). The Good Behavior Game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(4), 273–297. doi:10.1023/a:1020977107086
• Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The Good Behavior Game: 1969–2002. Behavior Modification, 30(2), 225–253. doi:10.1177/0145445503261165
• Kellam, S. G., Mackenzie, A. C. L., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Wang, W., Petras, H., & Wilcox, H. C. (2011). The Good Behavior Game and the future of prevention and treatment. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 6(1), 73–84.

Page metadata

Field	Value
type	product
id	good-behavior-game
title	Good Behavior Game
description	A classroom behavior-management programme originally developed at Johns Hopkins University in which students work in teams and receive recognition for meeting classroom behavior expectations, with implementations including PAX and AIR versions.
status	review
moved_from	element/good-behavior-game-strategy, strategy/good-behavior-game
product_kind	programme
generated	by process:sweep-kinds on 2026-10-10
trust	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources	1 — what-works-clearinghouse-2023

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.