Increasing Second-Grade Students' Reports of Peers' Prosocial Behaviors Via Direct Instruction, Group Reinforcement, and Progress Feedback: A Replication and Extension

Abstract The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend research on a program developed by Skinner, Cashwell, and Skinner (2000) that was designed to focus student attention on their classmates' incidental prosocial behaviors. An A-B-A-B withdrawal design was used to evaluate this program. First, experimenters taught second-grade students to identify and report peers' day- to-day prosocial behaviors. Interdependent group-oriented reinforcement and progress feedback procedures were developed and used to increase students' rates of reporting classmates' incidental prosocial behaviors. Results showed that direct instruction could be used to teach students to report peers' prosocial behaviors and that interdependent reinforcement and publicly posted progress feedback procedures increased and maintained these behaviors. Discussion focuses on developing and implementing proactive programs that may prevent social relation problems by encouraging day-to-day prosocial behaviors as opposed to merely punishing incidental inappropriate behaviors. Researchers have shown that problems with childhood interpersonal relationships could predict future education, (e.g., cognitive/academic achievement problems and school drop out), social/legal (e.g., juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior) and psychological problems (e.g., Caspi, Elder & Bem, 1987; Gresham, 1995; Parker & Asher, 1987; Wentzel, 1991). These studies have supported the need to develop and investigate procedures designed to teach social skills. Responses o this need have been strong. Stumbo (1995) listed 48 commercially available programs designed to teach children social skills. Furthermore, several meta-analytic studies attest to the quantity of research on social skills training (e.g., Beelman, Pfingsten, & Losel, 1994; Forness & Kavale, 1996; Schneider & Byrne, 1985). Although literature reviews and meta-analytic studies have led researchers to conclude that students can acquire social skills via formal planned instruction, few studies have shown that students will then employ these skills in their natural social environments (Ager & Cole, 1991; DuPaul & Ekert, 1994; Gresham, 1985; Ogilvy, 1994; Schnieder, 1992; Schneider & Byrne, 1985). Gresham (1995) posited that social skills learned via day-to-day incidental social interactions within natural environments are more likely to be generalized and maintained than those learned via planned curricula-based instruction. The reason for this may be that social behaviors that are shaped, encouraged, or reinforced within natural settings are likely to continue to be reinforced when they are once again displayed in natural settings (B. F. Skinner, 1966; Sto es & Baer, 1977). However, those skills specifically taught in planned instructional environments may not be reinforced when students perform these behaviors in their natural s ocial environments. Social skills instruction may be more likely to yield generalized changes in social behavior when procedures are altered within day-to-day social environments so that these environments reinforce or support those targeted prosocial behaviors (DuPaul & Ekert, 1994; Ervin, Miller, & Friman, 1996; Gresham, 1995). Unfortunately, as B. F. Skinner (1968) observed, educational environments are typically structured with proactive programs designed to prevent incidental antisocial behavior, as opposed to encourage incidental prosocial behavior. Across all levels of educational systems, rules are established that identify inappropriate behaviors and aversive consequences (i.e., punishment) that will follow these inappropriate behaviors. Federal and state regulations prescribe punishments for specific inappropriate behaviors (e.g., students who bring guns to school will be expelled for a year). School-wide punishment programs are also common (e.g., students who fight will be suspended). Within individual classrooms, te achers often establish their own punishment based programs (e. …