Conditioning techniques on children

• Why are conditioning techniques appropriate (peers)?

  Peers similar age & development. Start off influenced by parents, but influence of peer group starts to grow as you move to school. To reduce negative sanctions of peer group (criticism & exclusion) & to increase positive sanctions (praise & acceptance), kids imitate behaviours & actions of peers. (Conditioned by them).
• Why might peer group influences not be desirable?

  Bricker et al (2006)- kids as young as 10 more likely to try smoking if members of peer group smoked. Therefore kid's need for positive reinforcement from peer group is not always a healthy option.
• Conclusion:


  Parents, schools etc have obligation to ensure kids grow up able to function within society. Socialisation inevitably involves conditioning-basic route to learning & teaching. Ethical considerations: manipulation of behaviour e.g, in vulnerable kids (no free will). Techniques may not be most effective way to manage behaviour e.g, reward systems may be ineffective.
• Supernanny said...


  Shouting to correct inappropriate behaviour is positively reinforcing-naughty step works best when parents make fuss of what child does right (give + reinforcement at appropriate times).
• Gill (1998):


  Asked parents to encourage chore completion by payment of money (+ reinforcement) or postponement of money (punishment). Strategies were successful as kids ended up performing 20% of household chores. (Parental control over pocket money can increase + behaviours). Helps kids learn consequences- associate naughty step with negative things- improves behaviour.
• How can operant conditioning be used?

  Control behaviour of kids. Positive reinforcing: gold stars, merits, praise & house points reward good behaviour & performance.
• McAllister et al (1969):

  Inappropriate talking in high school English classes. Increased use of teacher praise & disapproval led to decrease in inappropriate talking. No decrease in control condition.
• LeFrancois (2000):


  Suggests classical conditioning used to improve student performance. Teachers should maximise pleasant stimuli in classroom & minimise unpleasant stimuli (e.g, shouting). Students have more positive feelings about work environment & their behaviour &/or academic performance will improve.
• Morris (2014):


  Claims 'naughty step' can have long-term emotional effects. Kids don't have same ability as adults to reflect on own behaviour & verbalise feelings they experience from things like naughty step. Without empathy & help with their feelings, naughty step may have negative effect on development.
• Why are conditioning techniques unlikely to be as effective IRL?

  Consistency-parents may try follow parenting gurus (e.g, Jo Frost) & be calm & consistent when applying techniques. Stressful life of full-time parent means even most dedicated parent may slip up & show frustration & inconsistency in applications. Kids may only do things for rewards & not understand why they need to act certain way. Time-consuming & distressing for parents.
• What are the 4 sections?


  Vulnerable groups of children, in school, at home & peers.
• Ethical implications:


  Manipulation of behaviour-where's free will, especially in vulnerable kids?
• Social implications:


  Vulnerable kids may have more 'normal' behaviour- likely to be accepted into society & participate in employment (good for economy). Frequent use of rewards may lead to selfish society & less cohesive as they're motivated by extrinsic factors.
• Levitt et al (2010):

  Reviewed programme in Chicago-kids offered financial incentives to improve, resulting in modest gains in performance. Benefits society-school leavers better educated.
• Gneezy et al (2011):


  Claim incentive programmes in education don't always offer best return on investment. Schools have diminishing budget-is it ethical to pay/reward students for performance when money could be spent elsewhere?
• Lepper et al (1973):


  Nursery kids asked to draw nice pictures. When promised reward they spent 1/2 as much time drawing as kids who weren't promised reward-suggests own motivation had been destroyed by expectation of extrinsic rewards.
• What does Montessori education believe?

  Rewards & punishments advocated by conditioning techniques harmful to child's development & interfere with child's internal drives to learn.
• Dweck (1975):


  Found kids who were praised for doing good work on maths test did worse on later more difficult test than those been told they were lazy. 2nd group learned task persistence whereas 'praised' group gave up easily. Rewards don't always lead to better performance-may create form of 'learned helplessness'.
• Lewis (1995):


  Observations of Japanese elementary schools-use of reward systems or praise rarely used-kids seemed internally motivated. (Reward systems not evident in different culture schools).
• Lovaas (1987):


  Developed ABA (applied behaviour analysis) to increase frequency & quality of social interactions for kids with autistic spectrum disorder. Target behaviours e.g, language difficulties or problems with self-care. 1-on-1 therapy shapes behaviour of child-initially child rewarded for most behaviours but over time rewards reduced & only issued if behaviour close to ideal target behaviour.
• Robinson et al (1981):

  Use of token economies can improve performance in reading & vocabulary-related tasks of kids with hyperactivity issues. Students given rewards (tokens) for desirable behaviours-collect & exchange for rewards (items/activities).
• Chaney et al (2004):


  Use of 'Funhaler' with kids with asthma-fun inhaler & thus reinforcing. After 2 weeks of use, parents reported their kids had fewer problems when medicating & had more positive response to treatment.
• What is wrong with the Lovaas method?

  Treatment supported by research (1987) with methodological flaws: not randomly allocating kids to control & experimental group. Conclusions about effectiveness of treatment may not be valid. Treatment intensive- approx. 40 hours per week. Incredibly costly. As conditioning techniques only treat symptoms, some believe undesirable behaviours may re-emerge once reinforcement has been removed.
• Anderson et al (1987):

  Found average of 20 hours per week (Lovaas method) was enough contact to allow for significant improvement.