You should really read the whole thing yourself, but here are a few paragraphs that (I hope) essentialize Jenn’s position:
Alfie Kohn, in his book Punished By Rewards , defines rewarding as a parent saying to a child "Do X and then you'll get Y." If you can put the interaction into If-Then terms, then it might be a reward. That is what we do not do around here with our kids--promise them something in order to get them to behave in a certain way...
My primary objection to using rewards is that the process involves a kind of mental bait-and-switch tactic. It takes (some or all of) the child's attention away from what needs to be done and why and places (some or all of) his attention onto the reward. In encouraging the child to switch his focus away from the rational reasons he ought to engage in a certain behavior, he is losing a valuable opportunity to learn some deeper ethical lessons...
If-Then Rewarding, while certainly effective in getting a child to act in a particular way, doesn't reinforce the more abstract ideas of independence and responsibility and other great things I think my kids need to practice and understand thoroughly before heading out into the world.
I agree with all of this in essence, but I have some important disagreements. I don’t think that “reinforcing the more abstract ideas of independence and responsibility” is always accomplished by means of having a concrete connection between cause and effect in every instance. I guess I'd summarize my position as: "Use extrinsic motivators temporarily, for long-range skills and habits, and never as a default."
First, I think rewards are appropriate to encourage effort at gaining new skills, especially skills that are much more easily acquired when young like swimming or riding a bike. Kids can not and do not think long-range at birth, and they don't know that their effort will pay off in the end. They need to learn this. Getting them to put forth effort for a totally arbitrary short-range reward is a great way to get them started, if they are not so inclined. I'm not willing to let my daughter suffer the natural consequences of not learning to swim or ride a bike without trying rewards to get her started.
I think that it is a parent's job to teach a child how important it is to put effort into long-range activities and skills, where the natural consequence will not be achieved quickly. How can children learn this except by being "tricked" into doing it a few times? You can push your children with negative, arbitrary punishments ("practice piano for an hour a day or you'll be grounded") or with positive, arbitrary rewards ("practice piano consistently for a month and we'll take you out to the restaurant of your choice"). I think the positive way is much better. But if you leave it to them entirely, I don't see how children could be expected to foresee the wonderful effects of such persistence before they have any experience. I don't think it takes much of this kind of rewarding, but I do think it takes some. In the piano example, I would imagine a month might even be too long. Once the child learns one song, they have a data-point to understand that continuing to practice will bring more and more value. My point is that it is ok, and even necessary, for children to do things for which they have no independent, intrinsic motivation. In other words, in some cases:
The child will only learn the rewards of virtue after practicing that virtue, in action, and seeing the positive results firsthand.
Even then, I think the more connected the reward is to the behavior, the better. I call these logical consequences. I got this from Susan Crawford, who makes a great distinctionbetween natural and logical consequences, saying that a natural consequence happens if the parent just stays out of the way, whereas a logic consequence is imposed by the parent, but connected to the original action in a logical way. (The natural consequence of learning to swim is simply gaining the skill. A positive, logical consequence would be throwing a pool party for the child at the end of summer.) Outside of the positive and negative versions of these consequences are the arbitrary, negative "punishments" and the arbitrary, positive "rewards." But I don't see a clear dividing line between positive, logical consequences and many rewards. The pool party could be viewed as a reward. There is a continuum, although once you get to star-charts it's arbitrary, and I'm fine with that too if there is nothing else you can think of. I have a great example of this that I'll save for my next post about how we're motivating Sammy to dress herself.
Second, I think rewards are great as a stop-gap. We used the Cooperation Chart for that reason. We used it for 10 days and it worked and we went back to our usual natural and logical consequences.
And third, I think as long as the norm is to focus on natural and logical consequences, it's fine to use rewards on occasion simply to make the parents' lives easier. If you have some isolated behavior that you want to encourage or stop, and you have a lot going on and it just needs to get done to save your sanity, a reward is fine. It just has to be a rare exception and not the rule. I don't think a few instances of using rewards will harm the child.
Despite this disagreement with Jenn, I agree with her basic point. I am horrified with the way that parents often default into reward systems for everything - money for grades, ice cream for politeness (when the child is old enough to be polite for the right, selfish reasons), TV for chores, etc. This kind of parenting is a recipe for secondhandedness, for sure, and this is a more fundamental issue than the exceptions I note here. But I don’t think this damns rewards entirely. I think they just need to be used for the right reasons.
I'm glad you wrote this thoughtful response to my post! This is a tricky topic, and an important one.
ReplyDeleteI need to think more about what you've written, but wanted to share my story of getting Ryan to take swimming lessons. He'd always been somewhat fearful of water and HATED getting water on his face (which was always great fun at bathtime when he was a toddler). As he approached his 4th birthday, he showed some interest in swimming, and doing other activities that involve knowing how to swim (going out in boats, for example) but was still very afraid. We found a teacher who took it slowly with him and he learned to overcome his fear.
We didn't trick him into it--although he did have a natural interest in the activity despite his fear. If he hadn't had that natural interest though, I would still have put him in swimming lessons at some point, because basic water survival is important. But I still don't think I would have tricked him into it, rewarded him to get him going. I might have explained that it's an Important Life Skill, and given him lots of fun things to do in the water, shown him the fun that comes with playing in a pool and having water skills. But I would not have offered him a prize or other reward system to begin swimming lessons. There's fun to be had in swimming (once you get over the fear)--that's the fun, rewarding part I'd focus on, and not add anything more.
Even chores around the house have some kind of natural good thing that happens as a result. Trimmed foliage looks nice and you can see out the windows. A tidy room is not a hazard to life and limb. (smirk) Clean dishes mean we can use them for the next meal. Now the kids might not appreciate all of those things at the same level I do, they may not actually VALUE a clean room (such is the case for Ryan). But when I help them do the not-fun activities that result in good things, I always point it out--and they do see the good result. As time has progressed, they are beginning to value these things more than they used to, which is of course what I want. :o) And this has happened without additional not-related reward systems.
Anyway, much to think about, and enjoyed your post!
Yes, Jenn, I thought I remembered that swim story about Ryan but I couldn't find it on your blog. But I seriously don't understand what you did to get him to do it. Maybe Sammy is extra-stubborn, but there are things she just won't even try. Part of it is that she is one of those kids who will not try something until she can do it well. And this worked ok for her as a baby. She didn't walk until she was 17 months, but then she got up and walked like a 2-year-old. It happens over and over like this.
ReplyDeleteBut this strategy will not work for her in the long run. As a baby, she just needed to wait for her body to be ready. As she grows, she'll need to practice skills. Getting dressed is one good example. I tried for weeks to get her to try to take off her shirt and she just would not even try. I tried fun, reverse-psychology, isolating the skills involved, having her copy me, and even peer pressure. She would not take one hand and grab hold of the fabric of her shirt. I put her hand on and tried to "force" her. When the sleeve came off, she got really excited, but still would not try it on her own. At this point, I'm done. There are things that are just not worth the effort. I think it's more important to get her to do it than to teach the cause and effect lesson in this case. My parents were too laissez-faire with me and it really harmed me. I wish they had pushed me more. But a lot of this will be in the next post.
I definitely agree with things like chores. But, of course, Sammy loves to clean up, so it's not an issue. So maybe I only agree because it's easier on that issue and I'm just not willing to put in the effort on the hard ones. But if that's the case, I'm still ok with it because I think the lessons still get learned.
Now, if she stops doing more and more things without rewards, I'll know that it's a problem and I'll have to stop. But so far, no sign of that.
Amy, thank you for this post. Your examples of rewarding to make a certain activity more attractive in the short term so that you can actually give it a chance are exactly what I was trying to get at on my comments on Jenn's post. It helped clarify a point for me, and if I get a chance in the next day or two I'll post on my own blog.
ReplyDeleteKevin - yes, in my original draft of this post I noted your comment on Jenn's post, but it got cut in my ruthless editing process. :) But your comment really helped me clarify my thinking on the skills issue. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThe other thing that got edited was another exception I would make to allow rewards for: building up good habits. I think getting kids into good habits early - things like brushing teeth daily, waking, eating and sleeping at the same times every day, and using good manners - are so important that I would use a totally arbitrary reward if necessary. We haven't had to do this, unless you count the cooperation chart, but I suspect we might have to when Sammy is older. Trying to build up these habits later in life is so hard, and when you are young you just can't understand it. It's the action side of thinking in principles. And you have to have some good content before you can apprciate how important good habits are. So in this case: do first, understand later. This might also apply to bad habits like smoking. Might that be a case where I would punish? Not sure, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
If I understand your arguments correctly, you are saying that it's good to use a reward system to entice a kid into doing something they don't want to do but that it's a good thing for them to learn how to do. Once they get going on it, then the reward system stops. Is that right?
ReplyDeleteMy point is that simply the doing of that thing is enough. With a parent's help, getting into the pool or picking up the toys or brushing the teeth IS a way for them to try out the activity that will (hopefully) one day become a good habit. Demonstrating the good (even if long-term) things that result from those activities is important, of course. Even getting the kid's input into making a not-fun thing a little more fun (music while cleaning up, or making cleaning up into an Army game) is fine. I do that all the time--I play "race against the clock" when I'm trying to motivate myself to do laundry or dishes.
The rational reasons are enough, even if they don't value them as much as I do (or at all). If it's important enough to do, then it should be done for that reason. I think the enticements are not only distracting, but can create unintended negative consequences, and be confusing to the child. Not to mention, it creates more work for me, to dream up and administer a reward system. It's not a primary reason I avoid them but that does come into play.
Sometimes, too, (and I'm not suggesting either of you are such parents), I've seen parents get excited when the kid goes for the shiny and trick *themselves* into thinking that the kid likes the THING. "Oh Johnny just LOVES cleaning up." Well no, he loves the shiny and is willing to clean up to get it. And when they say that out loud, I think it can be confusing to the kid. I see this quite a bit in the waiting room at TKD.
So I think that's the crux of my argument and where we disagree (but I'm so glad we can disagree in a constructive way, I'm enjoying this conversation and the comments on my blog). I think the rational reasons are enough for them to get the point of why something needs to be valued, even over the long-term. I think enticements can cloud the issue, get in the way of valuing the value because it's important enough to be valued. Not only do I believe this in theory, I've seen it in practice.
Jenn,
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not what I mean: "you are saying that it’s good to use a reward system to entice a kid into doing something they don’t want to do but that it’s a good thing for them to learn how to do."
That would mean that I'd be for all reward systems like money for grades.
Let's try this. What would the rational reason be for, say, a child to eat 3 meals a day? I think humans are naturally prone to eating more, smaller meals, and that this is healthier. But there are huge benefits to consolidating your meals, namely: you spend less time eating, and you can work within the structure of society. Or, on a smaller scale, family meals are more important than eating as the urge strikes (at least to me!). It's hard to hold a regular job when you don't eat lunch at noon. (Trust me, I've tried!) And if you don't get into the habit early, it's difficult to change. Can a 6-year-old understand this? Probably. Can a 3-year-old? No.
So, you might wait until the child CAN understand and have independent, rational reasons for doing the thing. My point is that there are things that are better done earlier. This one is probably not the best example, since it isn't really THAT hard to change your eating habits later. But I think that having a general structure to your day is important to do from birth. Babies totally resist this, but we mold them into sleeping at night and eating less often. This is actually my primary objection to attachment parenting (I know you are a fan of it) - that it is child-led. I believe you DO need to change the child, and impose structure, even if they'll come around on their own later. I guess that's an analogy...I'm just thinking on paper here.
And, less theoretically, I wonder what motivation I could give my 3-year-old for learning to ride a bike? She has already shown that she does not want to put forth the effort. We haven't tried too many other things (and we'll try more before we resort to rewards), but imagine if she just can't see the benefit. Seeing people ride bikes fascinates her, but she can't make the connection that if she TRIES, she can do it too. Putting our hands on her feet and helping her push the pedals is a great way to "help" but it doesn't help if she is not making mental/physical connections that can only be done through EFFORT. And that's where she is right now. She does not understand effort. She does not understand that trying things over and over leads to accomplishment. So why would she try, no matter what words I offer? The words don't mean anything to her.
I suppose it's possible that once she is 4 or 5, this issue will disappear and she will be able to comprehend the longer-range reasons. But I suspect that all that will change will be the range. As she gets older, she'll understand longer and longer range issues, but I foresee having to push and nudge her towards the ones that are out of her reach, and I suspect that she will continue to have to "do first and understand later" for things throughout her childhood.
I wish my parents had done more of this for me, but I also appreciate that they were generally very much like you, allowing me to learn on my own. (Much better than having authoritarian parents.) But I know from my own experience that it was not enough. I needed more guidance and pushing. It was very difficult to learn these things in my twenties and thirties.
I, too, am LOVING this exchange.
Jenn, yes I recalled the reading issue with Ryan in regard to this too. I do think we differ. I'm not sure if I would have done any differently in his case. I would have to know him and the whole picture. But you do seem to be acting on principle and very consistently, whereas my position seems less principled. That bothers me about my position, and yet, I still don't think yours is right somehow. I'll keep thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteAmy, I just wanted to say I very much appreciated and agreed with your post. The exchange with RJ is very interesting. I don't have time to get into it right now, but I hope you two will keep discussing it so I can passively observe!
ReplyDeleteI will say this, though: it sort of feels like the proper concepts are lacking. Somehow "reward" and "punishment" and "extrinsic motivation" vs. "intrinsic motivation" and all of those things just don't seem quite right for capturing whatever fundamental distinction(s) need to be made here. So I'm not even convinced, actually, that you and Jenn disagree about too much. To make an analogy, it seems a little bit like two people arguing about whether "democracy" is good or bad, with one person saying "obviously good since the alternative, fascism, is horrible" and the other person saying "obviously bad since it is based on collective whim instead of efficient central planning" or something.
Of course, the analogy breaks down in that we all know and agree about what the right concepts are in the case of political theory. But it just feels like that kind of discussion to me, where there are apparent disagreements that somehow probably are based on neither side knowing/having the right concepts to name/identify the fundamentally distinct underlying approaches. (Think: "Oh, it's *capitalism* that's good -- because it lacks the dictatorial force aspect of fascism, and because it renders others' whims irrelevant to your life... I guess we agree after all!") So I guess this is just a suggestion that all of us interested in this topic step back and try to form good concepts -- i.e., be asking questions like "how are these various parenting strategies we all basically like different from the other ones we don't?" instead of "are rewards good or bad?" if that makes sense. Not that you're not already doing that to some extent!
Travis: that is an excellent point. I don't like the "positive discipline" school of thought, overall, for this reason. Jane Nelsen's foundation for her ideas is very bad, in my opinion, although I think she gets to the right solutions much of the time.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any ideas on what the proper concepts might be?
I do think that extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation is a valid, conceptual, relevant distinction in this discussion. But there might be a wider concept that helps unite the "exceptions" I believe in. I'd love to figure that out, if it's true. And you might be right about rewards and consequences. As I said in my post, I don't see a clear conceptual divide there. Can rewards be used to promote intrinsic motivation, and if so, is that what matters? Really, a consequence comes from reality, whereas a reward or punishment comes from a person. Isn't that the distinction? And then, aren't parents stand-in's for reality in certain cases? I do see myself that way. I create concrete effects that Sammy can grasp immediately, when the cause-and-effect connection is not clear enough for a child to understand. That might be a fruitful path to think about.
I wish I could get us all in a room to discuss this in person. Anyone want to come to DC? :)
Amy,
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting post and discussion. Initially, I agreed with you, and then by the end I was swayed by Jenn. :)
I'm going to go out on a limb, but I think the difference between you and Jenn is that you're less confident that the activity will be inherently motivating or interesting to a child. It seems like you think that children must necessarily grasp the long-term benefits and pleasures that will come from learning something like riding a bike and swimming before they will be motivated to do it. And therefore, because a child is not capable of grasping and/or projecting these things then this will be the obstacle to them wanting to pursue it. Therefore, artificial rewards can be a substitute and until the day when they see the value of the activity in its own right.
One of your examples, "And, less theoretically, I wonder what motivation I could give my 3-year-old for learning to ride a bike? She has already shown that she does not want to put forth the effort. We haven’t tried too many other things (and we’ll try more before we resort to rewards), but imagine if she just can’t see the benefit."
Whereas, I think Jenn is confident that the intrinsic enjoyment of engaging in an activity. Jenn is convinced that the act of mastering the activity in-and-of itself will be motivation enough, even without a child grasping the long-term benefits of having mastered this activity.
To put it more succinctly, you're right that they can't grasp the long-term benefits of engaging in certain things, but Jenn doesn't think they need to grasp these for them to be motivated.
Even after I said all that, I don't think there are necessarily negative consequences of using rewards, it's just the absence of an extra potential positive. I think (and I think what Jenn is saying) that if you don't use rewards and instead wait until the motivation comes from the child naturally, you get this extra benefit of it being a stronger value association. Not that they wouldn't come to really love something even with reward, but it's almost like it helps them develop an extra sensitivity to their own desires.
Not sure if that helps or not :) and I don't have enough interaction with children myself to add anything more to the discussion, but fascinating debate.
No, I don't really have any idea what the right concepts might be... otherwise I would have just said what I thought!
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with you that "extrinsic" vs. "intrinsic" motivation captures some kind of valid distinction, but something about it leaves me a little suspicious. To me, the word "intrinsic" is supposed to denote "from within" whereas "extrinsic" is supposed to denote "from without". I suspect the terminology comes from a wrong philosophical context, according to which there is some innate pre-programmed desire to "do the right thing" and so there's an element of "just don't get in the way with external factors" (which smells vaguely of the Waldorf approach that I despise) in saying that "intrinsic motivation" is good. I'm not saying the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction is fully corrupted by anything like this, just that it seems like it's at best a case of bad terminology for a good distinction, and that alone is enough to make me suspicious that the distinction it captures isn't as valid as it appears.
Anyway, I think we all agree that a big part of the *right* distinction to be making is distinguishing between "feedback" coming from reality vs. "feedback" coming from other people. (I'm using "feedback" here as a deliberately vague/neutral stand-in for "reward", "punishment", etc.) But as you suggested, it can't just be that simple because, well, people are part of reality and, somehow or other, a big part of a parent's proper job is to sort of "proxy" for reality in certain kinds of cases (like preventing the natural consequences of running in front of a bus... or never learning how to swim... or eating too much junk food... or not keeping a regular sleeping schedule as a 2-year-old... and so on).
So, I just think there is some work to be done in thinking about all this carefully and forming some new concepts.
Wow--great conversation! One thing I wanted to quickly point out is that the authors who write about "positive discipline" techniques are not necessarily all on the same page philosophically, nor are any of them Objectivists (to my knowledge).
ReplyDeleteI've been lately trying to make a distinction in my parenting posts, because of this fact. I am trying to derive my parenting principles from my principles as an Objectivist (all mistakes are mine, of course). So, given the fact that I'm trying to live my life as an Objectivist, and so is my husband, and that we value raising our kids so that they can learn the virtues we think are essential for happiness, given those things--I have found the tools, techniques, strategies found in the parenting books by those authors in the "positive discipline" realm to be the most compatible with my parenting philosophy.
I don't think that those books are without value even though those authors would certainly not agree with me on certain philosophical topics--most would certainly disagree with us about self-interest/altruism, for example. What I'm attempting to do is articulate MY parenting principles (which I hope are compatible with the philosophy I've chosen to live my life by), and then demonstrate that HERE is a set of tools that are generally compatible with that philosophy that help me guide my kids in such a way that A.) I am acting virtuously (which models that for the kids), and B.) that my kids have a chance to develop their character in accordance with the virtues.
I hope that makes sense. :o)
Also, there is definitely some work to be done in the definition realm, but I think there are possibly some differing premises that might be at the base of our disagreement. Keith hit pretty close to this when he suggested that maybe the difference is one of "confidence in intrinsic enjoyment" of the child. Not to be confused with the Waldorf school of thought, as Travis pointed out. Kids NEED external guidance, and indeed sometimes they NEED a parent to step in and physically prevent them from doing something harmful to themselves or others (by this I mean restraint, not spanking or hitting). I think we're all in agreement on this, that kids need guidance and that the parent's role is to provide it.
The tricky part is deciding when and how to get involved. My general principle is to wait and see IF the kid shows me he needs this type of intervention. When there is no time to "wait and see" and things look dire, I'll step in first and ask questions later. But those situations are not the norm. I'd rather "wait and see" and give the kid a chance to figure out the situation and/or correct it without my involvement if that's at all possible. If I need to get involved, then I try to keep it to the minimum necessary.
As someone mentioned, we're all pretty "close" to each other in how we parent. But it's the things that distinguish us that I think are so important to identify and figure out--which is the benefit of such discussions! (yay!)
Keith,
ReplyDeleteYour comment did clarify something, although I'm not sure if it is what Jenn meant. (Jenn?) But I 100% agree with this:
"..if you don't use rewards and instead wait until the motivation comes from the child naturally, you get this extra benefit of it being a stronger value association."
And I feel that it would be great to do it for everything if nothing was sacrificed, but yes indeed, I do not trust that the motivation will be there. Maybe it is just the way Sammy is, or maybe it is that I don't wait long enough for her to come to things on her own. One thing I could do to test this is to pick some new skill that Sammy is balking at and that is not time-sensitive in any way, and just wait. Of course, I've done this before. Crawling (never happened), walking (7-9 months later than average), potty training (I waited as long as I could before outside forces intervened), first "words," going down a waterslide, and so many more things came late for Sammy. Mostly, I've tried to let her show me when she was ready. But I think about doing that into her later childhood and it just seems wrong.
It's possible that I'm conflating Jenn's method with what my parents did in an inappropriate way. My parents were so laissez faire that I never learned how to work hard at anything. I was NOT motivated by anything, and nobody ever showed me why I should be. I had absolutely no persistence and didn't want to try anything that didn't come easily to me. Part of that might be my character, but I was not helped by my parents. And then I see Sammy, who is showing the same tendencies, and I think that I really need to teach her. Not teach her the skills, but about effort.
I have an idea. I'm going to make a list of everything I can think of where I have seen Sammy putting forth effort or showing persistence. That will show me if I my concern is objective or if it is just my fears based on my own childhood.
Thanks!
Ryan is one of those people who gets frustrated easily and wants to give up. Me, too! It took me a long time to appreciate the advantages of being persistent. As a toddler, we focused on teaching him ways to recognize his frustration and to ask for help. Now that he's older, he is still easily frustrated, but has the skill of asking for help when he wants it.
ReplyDeleteHe is also seeing the benefit of working toward long-term goals in Taekwondo. It takes quite a while to learn all the skills necessary to get to the next belt--and it's amazing all of the things he knows how to do at his young age. Now when he gets frustrated and wants to give up on something, I sometimes remind him that TKD was hard at first, but he practiced and improved, and now he's a purple belt. That feels good, all of that hard work! He can directly relate that positive experience from the past to the new, hard thing, and often he works at his goal with new dedication.
But he would not have been able to grasp the idea of working hard to make incremental improvements to achieve a long-term goal at Sammy's age. This is an idea he is only just beginning to truly grasp at 7.5.
The only thing I can think to do at this point is help him understand things he can do--ask for help, properly vent his frustrations--and remind him of the positives he's experienced as a result of times when he was persistent. The rest is up to him, to understand and integrate this idea. If he makes mistakes along the way, then I'd rather he make them when he's young and can learn from them (hopefully) and before the consequences are too dire. But he may make mistakes as an adult, too--maybe quitting a project or a job before he should have, and then realizing later that it was a mistake. If he does, well, I'm sure he'll learn from those mistakes at that time, too.
My own parents, unlike yours, had too many rules for too long. I well remember feeling stifled by that. However, I didn't want to be completely hands-off either, because kids do need limits. So I tried to figure out where that tricky line is--and I make mistakes about where to draw that line all the time, just ask my children. :) So in a case where someone by temperament is unlikely to see the long-term consequences of their actions/inactions, I will, at the very least, talk to them about what I see and why it's important. Who knows? It's even possible they'll hear what I have to say!
[...] forth effort, and she needs reinforcement to know that it’s ok to do things wrong. (See the comments on my Reward Systems post from last week for further discussion of [...]
ReplyDeleteAmy: I hope you'll stop by and comment on my latest post, which defines reward explicitly, gives examples, and gives a brief indication of why I don't think rewards are bad.
ReplyDelete