Behaviourist - Conditioning

Question 1

FOR: at home

Answer 1

• positive reinforcement often used by parents to increase non-essential but desirable behaviours of children at home
• naughty step used as positive reinforcement - work best when parents make fuss of good behaviour
• gill 1988 asked parents to encourage chore completion by payment of money - resulted in 20% of household chores being completed
  —> learn value of money and independence skills
• supernanny promote operant conditioning through reward charts and naughty step
• children taught right and wrong so they abide to law and hopefully get good job to live comfortably
  —> otherwise grow into criminals which means prison and -ve economy
• conditioning more ethical than used to be - not corporal punishment

Question 2

AGAINST: at home

Answer 2

• techniques such as naughty step are frequently criticised by childcare experts as said to have long term emotional affects as children not taught to reflect in behaviour
• Morris 2014 claims naughty step has long term emotional impacts
• no empathy or help to verbalise feelings
• no consistency in stressful life of full time parent
• likely to be less effective than promised by research
• parenting approach vary from culture to culture so likely methods would be more or less effective in different cultures
• unethical to condition children without knowledge or consent - free will?

Question 3

FOR: school

Answer 3

• education is major user of operant conditioning techniques to control behaviour of children
• gold stars, merits and even house points are positive reinforcers and lead to improved behaviour
• McAllister (1969) found increased teacher praise and teacher disapproval led to decrease in inappropriate talking
• no decrease in control
• LeFrancojs suggested classical conditioning can be used to improve student performance
  —> maximise pleasant stimuli in classrooms so good work enviro
• if financial rewards increase school grades then this will positively benefit society and economy
• leave school with better grades, get better jobs and greater contribution
• GenZ expect higher financial incentives as have been bought up by conditioning techniques

Question 4

AGAINST: school

Answer 4

• some education approaches such as the Montessori education believe that rewards and punishments advocated by conditioning are harmful to a child’s development as interfere with internal drive to learn
• Lepper et al 1973 conducted research to support this - when nursery children were promised a reward for nice drawing they spent less time drawing than those who weren’t - motivation gone
• Dweck 1975 - those praised do works on a test 2nd time round than those called lazy
• Lewis 1995 conduct observations in Japanese elementary schools where reward systems were rare so internal motivation was high
• social: conditioned emotional responses may be used by teachers to incite fear and anxiety ie pupil afraid to answer question —> ethics
• ethical: issues like protection from harm, remove free will from children, make fit mould of model citizen
• political: corporal punishment - banned in wales & Scotland but allowed in England when deemed reasonable

Question 5

FOR: vulnerable children

Answer 5

• conditioning techniques can also be used to help children with psychological and medical conditions, such as autism and ADHD
• Lovaas 1987 developed applied behaviour analysis (ABA) to increase the frequency and quality of social interactions for children with ASD
• one on one therapy shapes behaviour of child as initially rewarded for behaviour but rewards reduced when close to ideal target behaviour
• Robinson et al 1981 showed how use of token economies can improve performance in reading and vocabulary tests of children with hyperactivity issues
• chaney et al 2004 used funhaler for asthma
• will not get constant rewards in real world - false idea
• money incentives gives wrong motivation
• potentially bad for economy if do not put much effort in

Question 6

AGAINST: vulnerable children

Answer 6

• Lovaas methods have been criticised as inappropriate due to demands and issues with therapy
• 40hr therapy per week is costly and arguably unnecessary - Anderson et al found 20hr to be effective
• conditioning only treats symtopms so undesirable behaviours could reemerge once reinforcedments removed
• methodological flaws
• even in +ve punishment we are manipulating behaviour of vulnerable individuals who
• valid consent
• difficult to generalise