The use of conditioning techniques to control children's behaviour Flashcards
CONDITIONING IS APPROPRIATE: At home
Supernanny Jo Frost used the ‘naughty step’ to correct inappropriate behaviour. Parents should make a fuss about what their child does right and give positive reinforcement at appropriate times. Parental control over pocket money has been used to increase positive behaviours, such as washing the car or tidying a child’s bedroom. Gill (1998) asked parents to encourage chore completion by paying pocket money or withdrawing pocket money (punishment) and found that these strategies were successful, with children performing 20% of household chores.
CONDITIONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE: At home
Morris (2014) has highlighted the potential long-term emotional effects of the naughty step, as children cannot reflect on their behaviour and verbalise the feelings they experience compared to adults. Additionally, consistency is an issue as even dedicated parents may slip up and demonstrate frustration and inconsistency in their applications of conditioning techniques. Therefore, conditioning techniques are unlikely to be as effective in real life as experts promise.
CONDITIONING IS APPROPRIATE: At school
Education has been using operant conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of children. Gold stars, merits and house points are positive reinforcers, while praise is also reinforcing. McAllister et al. (1969) found that increased use of teacher praise and disapproval led to a decrease in inappropriate talking. LeFrançois (2000) suggests that classical conditioning can be used to improve student performance by maximising pleasant stimuli and minimising unpleasant stimuli. This means a positive work environment leads to improved behaviour and academic performance.
CONDITIONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE: At school
Montessori education is an educational approach that questions the use of rewards and punishments in conditioning techniques. Research from Lepper et al. (1973) found that when children were promised a reward, they spent half as much time drawing as those not promised a reward. Dweck (1975) found that children who were praised for doing good work on a math test did worse on a later, more difficult test than those who had been told they were lazy. The second group had learned task persistence whereas the ‘praised’ group gave up easily. This suggests that rewards do not always lead to better performance.
CONDITIONING IS APPROPRIATE: Peers
Children are influenced by their peers, who are similar in age and development. To reduce negative sanctions (such as exclusion and criticism) and increase positive sanctions (such as praise and acceptance), children imitate the behaviours and actions of their peers. This is a form of conditioning.
CONDITIONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE: Peers
Peer group influences may not be desirable ones. Bricker (2006) found that children as young as 10 were more likely to try smoking if members of their peer group smoked, suggesting that peer group influences may not always be beneficial.
CONDITIONING IS APPROPRIATE: Vulnerable children
Psychologists use conditioning techniques to help children with various psychological and medical conditions. 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 the behaviour of a child by rewarding only those behaviours that are close to the ideal target behaviour. Robinson et al. (1981) showed how the use of token economies can improve performance in reading and vocabulary-related tasks of children with hyperactivity issues. In a token economy, students are given tokens for desirable behaviours, which they then exchange for rewards.
CONDITIONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE: Vulnerable children
Critics of the Lovaas methodology believe it has many problems, such as not randomly assigning children to the control or experimental group, and its intensive treatment of 40 hours per week. Apart from being incredibly costly, Anderson et al (1987) found that an average of 20 hours per week was enough contact for a significant improvement, but some believe undesirable behaviours may re-emerge once reinforcement is removed.
