Contemporary Debate: Conditioning To Control Children's Behaviour Flashcards
Intro to CD. 1
- Based on either classical or operant conditioning (association or reinforcement/punishment)
- Controversial as its manipulating behaviour and children might have little awareness that it is happening.
First point: ‘Gill’s 1991 research’ (HOME)
- Pocket money to perform chores (Positive reinforcement)
- Used as encouragement (even though they thought money shouldn’t be used)
- 20% of tasks pitched in when necessary
It is ethical because as children enjoy being rewarded, the home itself is benefited with the completion of tasks. Parent’s burden is eased.
-
First point: ‘Gill’s 1991 research’ - Implications
ETHICAL: May not be able to afford the constant reinforcement. Without a reward children less likely to complete chores, burdens not eased.
SOCIAL: If children are constantly being rewarded, they may expect rewards in other contexts of their life, causing disappointment.
First point: ‘Gill’s 1991 research’: Conclusion
- Could be ethical as parent’s burdens in the households are eased.
- Ethical if children enjoy being rewarded
- Unethical if the children begin to expect rewards in other parts of their life, and if parents cant afford it.
Second point: ‘Supernanny’ (HOME)
- Jo Frost invited into homes to investigate problems
- ‘naughty step’ used as an example (op. conditioning)
- Must sit on step for as many minutes as their age, must think about what they did wrong
- Aims to condition their child nit to repeat it
- Parent returns, asks for an apology
It is ethical because it is easy for the parents to implement, no additional costs.
Second point: ‘Supernanny’ - Implications
ETHICAL: Morris (2014) long term negative effects, children cannot verbalise their feelings, can damage future relationships if isolated for bad behaviour.
However: Uni of Michigan 1,400 families no increase of anxiety or depression. Dr Knight says the key is consistency and understanding.
ETHICAL: If parents are inconsistent, may send mixed messages. E.g a busy life. Therefore unlikely to be effective long term
Second point: ‘Supernanny’ - Conclusion
- Ethical if used consistently and with understanding (Dr Knight)
- Unethical if inconsistent, Morris says that it can cause long term effects, especially when a child cannot verbalise their feelings.
Third point: ‘Naughty step vs physical punishment’ (HOME)
- Less controversial
- P. Punishment illegal in Scotland and Wales, 1 in 5 10 year old experience it in UK.
- Holden: in 33 recorded families, behaviour continued after being smacked 75% of the time.
**Not ethical because it just simply isn’t effective, naughty step better*
Third point: ‘Naughty step vs physical punishment’- Implications
STRENGTH OF RESEARCH: Real Time info as its an observation, rather than parents lying.
ETHICAL: Smacking leads to worsening parent-child relationships, anxiety, depression and aggression.
Third point: ‘Naughty step vs Physical punishment’- Conclusion
- Not ethical to smack as it isn’t effective
- Not ethical to smack as it leads to mental health issues and damaged relationships
- Therefore naughty step is the better alternative
Fourth point: ‘McAllister’s 1969 research’ (SCHOOL)
- Teacher praise/disproval after caused a direct decrease in inappropriate communication.
- No difference in the control group
- Conditioning as every time students use bad language the teacher disproves of them. Overtime, association eith appropriate language to praise.
Supported by Le Francois: positive classroom stimuli helps children associate that eith learning, leading to boosts in academic performance. Should be used as children reap positive rewards
Fourth point: ‘McAllister’s 1969 research’ - Implications
ETHICAL: Increasing positive stimuli creates a positive experience for a child, as well as better teacher relationships.
SOCIAL: Better grades leads to better educated individuals
Fourth point: ‘McAllister’s 1969 research’ - Conclusions
- Ethical because there are less negative stimuli that might affect students in other ways
- Ethical if students become better educated
Fifth point: ‘Psychology Today’ (HOME)
-‘Motivating children without rewards’
- Rewards should be used only when needed.
- Constant rewards diminish a child’s intrinsic motivation, they themselves aren’t soley motivated
- Smaller day to day tasks should not be rewarded. Larger tasks that are much more time consuming should be. (Extrinsic motivation)
Supported by DECI and LEPPER. DECI found that those paid did not continue eith puzzle during break, whereas those who still had intrinsic motivation did. LEPPER found that children expecting a certificate played eith the pens less than those not expecting one.
Fifth point: ‘Psychology Today’ - Implications
SOCIAL: Children who expect rewards take this into winder society, expecting rewards for doing bare minimum. Links to tipping debate: should waiters be tipped for doing their job?
However: Levitt (2010) showed that financial motivations cause higher academic achievements.
Fifth point: ‘Psychology today’ - Conclusions
- Ethical because it stops a child’s intrinsic motivation from being diminished, increases their likelihood of independent learning
- Unethical if rewards aren’t used properly or inconsistently, could take this into the workplace. Expect rewards for nothing.
