Is this a dumb idea?

[figure9]

I got ice-cream sandwiches for my kids (ages 9 & 11) on Sunday. Each child got 4 ice-cream sandwiches and this deal. They could eat the sandwiches whenever they wanted, but for every sandwich they had left on Friday they would get $1 and the sandwiches were still theirs to eat whenever they wanted to.
My thought was that this would help them learn self control and that delayed gratification can pay off. My wife thinks this is one of the dumbest ideas I have had.
So where does my plan stand on the idea scale?

[Harmonious Discord]

It all comes down to if it accomplished your goal.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

As a parent of 15 and 12 year olds, I say it might be an interesting experiment. Your kids are old enough to get the idea and have a fighting chance of being able to do it. But, it may not be testing the behavior you think it is- it may be testing relative rewards for that child- is that child's desire for IC greater than their desire of $1 at that moment. If they eat the IC it may not mean a lack of self control, but that the dollar isn't as important to them. I also don't think it can teach self-control. That requires behavior modification over the long haul. It may sample the child's current state of self control, especially of you use a reward they say they would be willing to not eat IC for a week to get. If they then eat the IC, you know it's more likely a self control issue.

As long as it is not punitive, it could be fun!

[panache45]

You might want to up the ante. A dollar (or four) doesn't mean much these days.

[6ImpossibleThingsB4Breakfast]

I dunno - seems like a bad idea to me. I would think that at 9 and 12, they kind of get the idea that they could eat their entire stash and have nothing until next week, or meter it out and have a little something almost every day. I'm not sure there's an extra reward warranted for figuring that out.

I'm wondering whether it actually teaches them about self control, or just how to hold off for a week, score the dollars and shove everything that's left in their gob all at once.

[NoClueBoy]

Neutral. I don't know your kids. Or you, for that matter.

[Hyperelastic]

I'm wondering whether it actually teaches them about self control, or just how to hold off for a week, score the dollars and shove everything that's left in their gob all at once.


Holding off for a week is self-control. He's not trying to teach them unmitigated self-denial. I might have pushed it a little further and offered them another $1 to give up the ice cream altogther.

I think it was a good idea, I'm curious as to how it turned out, and I may try something like this with my kids. Except I'll use Silly Bandz instead of dollars.

[Manda JO]

I think it would be better if you talked about it with the kids: as mentioned, if they don't see why the $1 + ice cream is a better choice, they won't have any reason to strive for it. I would also make the analogy very concrete to them using illustrations from your own life.

I would also teach them techniques of self control: "when you think about the ice cream and really really want it, here are some things you could do to resist: blah blah blah". Setting a goal and having a kid figure out a method to accomplish it is a good way to have them fail and feel ashamed, but not really have the tools to do better in the future--"Go distract yourself by playing outside" or "Think about what you could buy with the dollar" is much better advice than "Try harder".

Lastly, I wouldn't make the reward some sort of food. People develop neurosis and issues around food very, very easily. Food seems to condition people on a primal level. Games like this seem dangerous. Have the reward be a toy or something: "Don't play with this Lego set all week and you get $1: if you open the box before then, you get to keep it, but no dollar."

[jasonh300]

You might want to up the ante. A dollar (or four) doesn't mean much these days.

Geez...I was about to say that maybe he should drop the dollar down to a quarter. If they got 4 quarters at the end of the week, they could play the jukebox down at the malt shop all afternoon.

[John DiFool]

Obligatory Simpsons clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3ZcZ2h4Ths)

[Freudian Slit]

It just seems weird to me. Plus, the idea of giving someone food but also rewarding them for not eating it...for some reason, I get an increased risk of eating disorder vibe...

[6ImpossibleThingsB4Breakfast]

Holding off for a week is self-control.

I'm not sure it is, when it's for an external reward, rather than the simple satisfaction of knowing you could actually do it all on your own.

And what if there are, say 3 ice creams left, and the minute you get the bucks, you vacuum 'em in one after the other. Does waiting for that week prove self-control?

[DigitalC]

It seems more like an experiment than a lesson. I admit to being curious about the results but i doubt it will teach them anything.

[Alpha Twit]

Just pondering what might keep one child from sneaking an ice cream, saying the other child snarfed it, getting the money and the ice cream at the end of the week and generally screwing over their sibling. Good idea in my book. Parents, when in doubt, turn the kids against each other. It keeps them from ganging up on you.

[Jolly Roger]

I got ice-cream sandwiches for my kids (ages 9 & 11) on Sunday. Each child got 4 ice-cream sandwiches and this deal. They could eat the sandwiches whenever they wanted, but for every sandwich they had left on Friday they would get $1 and the sandwiches were still theirs to eat whenever they wanted to.
My thought was that this would help them learn self control and that delayed gratification can pay off. My wife thinks this is one of the dumbest ideas I have had.
So where does my plan stand on the idea scale?

When I was a kid my grandfather tried to keep me from drinking too many sodas. I was only allowed to have 2 a day, and if I didn't drink them they did not roll over to the next day. I didn't get a reward either.

[drachillix]

So where does my plan stand on the idea scale?

When they hold off for a week to get $4, buy a box of 6 for $2.99 and keep a dollar your mission is complete.

[tumbleddown]

Associating food with rewards and privileges, self-denial tests and competitions of delayed gratification is the first step to setting up a very bad (and sadly typical) relationship with food and eating. There is no virtue in delayed gratification where food is concerned, anyway. It's a horrible idea.

[Max the Immortal]

This reminds me of the marshmallow experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow_experiment):The "marshmallow experiment" is a well known test of this concept conducted by Walter Mischel at Stanford University and discussed by Goleman in his popular work. In the 1960s, a group of four-year-olds were given a marshmallow and promised another, only if they could wait 20 minutes before eating the first one. Some children could wait and others could not. The researchers then followed the progress of each child into adolescence and demonstrated that those with the ability to wait were better adjusted and more dependable (determined via surveys of their parents and teachers), and scored significantly higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test years later.

[Rand Rover]

Associating food with rewards and privileges, self-denial tests and competitions of delayed gratification is the first step to setting up a very bad (and sadly typical) relationship with food and eating. There is no virtue in delayed gratification where food is concerned, anyway. It's a horrible idea.

We are talking about ice cream bars, which are a specific subset of food known as "treats," i.e., things one can live without but are nice to eat on occasion. Therefore, I don't think the concerns you've raised are all that valid. We aren't talking about the classic "finish all your dinner or you don't get dessert."

[Freudian Slit]

We are talking about ice cream bars, which are a specific subset of food known as "treats," i.e., things one can live without but are nice to eat on occasion. Therefore, I don't think the concerns you've raised are all that valid. We aren't talking about the classic "finish all your dinner or you don't get dessert."

I think a lot of people do have these problems with sweet foods, too, though. Like, classifying foods as "good" or "bad" and feeling guilty when they eat foods that are "bad." I don't see the point of delaying gratification. I think seeing food as a reward is kind of dangerous. It's not like you should eat when you've been "good" (or bored or upset, etc.). I mean, when I eat something, it's not tied in to my emotional state--it's tied in to whether I'm hungry or not.

[monstro]

Do your kids have a general problem with self-control? Because if not, it seems more manipulative than anything else.

Also, self-control can be self-taught amongst siblings, without any parental intervention, via competition. My twin sister and I used to do it all the time. Daddy would bring home a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts and give us one each. Then the two of us would compete to see who could eat their donut the slowest. Most times she won; only a few times did I win (at least, that's how my memory plays it out :p). My point is that we were teaching ourselves, without knowing it, how to delay gratification.

I'm betting just giving the two their own allotment of ice cream sandwiches, without any additional incentive, will test their strengths of will. Because it won't take that long for one of them to figure out that if they eat all their ice cream sandwiches on Monday (ouch, sick tummy!) and the sibling is able to dangle hers in the other's face by the end of the week, that next time the "loser" is going to do the same thing, except even more so.

[kittenblue]

I voted neutral on this because while I think the lesson you are trying to teach is important, I also think it would have been kinder to let them each have one ice cream bar to eat, and then make the dollar deal for the rest. That way they aren't making their decision from a position of being desperate for something cold and creamy on a sweltering hot day, but from a position of being sated and not in "need" (yes, I know they don't "need" it). But to make them wait nearly a week for even a taste seems a bit mean.

Once upon a time, Lawson's milk stores would have sales on ice cream bars...10 for $1. My mom would buy all three of us ten ice cream bars, and they were put in labeled plastic boxes in the freezer. We could eat them whenever we wanted (except right before dinner) but when they were gone, they were gone....she would not buy any more at full price, we had no real money of our own and we certainly weren't allowed to go up to Lawson's on our own like all the other kids on the block who were known to squander a quarter or two a DAY on popsicles and the like. So we made those ice cream bars last. Oh, the first day or two, it was hard to ration, but after that it was much easier to delay gratification, because we weren't desperate and craving. I don't recall which of us "won" becasue it wasn't a competition, but I'm sure my brother (9 years older and a bottomless pit with a paper route and permission to cross streets alone) did not feel as constrained as little old me. And if I had to guess, I'd think my sister (5 years older) "won" because she is the queen of cheap.

[Al Bundy]

I think it's a nice experiment and teaching tool. Most kids will eat the ice cream and not care about the money. You could try variations like more money or a sliding scale. Parents that try these different things inspire the kids to think.

PS. I knew a man who looked at all his kid's college textbooks each year. After all, he was paying for those expensive texts. He was not so much reading them as finding a place to hide money. He would put a crisp bill tight to the binder at page 195 for example. Then he would check back later. While I see the obvious flaw in this system, at least the kid had to open a book. Surely, this was only one of many ploys he used. The kid was probably off balance and afraid to try to pull one over on the old man so to speak.

[Khadaji]

It reminds me of Skinner's Walden Two. If I recall he had a lollipop with powdered sugar on it tied around the children's necks, with similar reasoning.

I decided not to vote, as I am not a parent and I'm not sure I have sufficient experience to have a valid opinion.

[luv2draw]

Really bad idea. Using food as a reward or punishment confuses children and can cause insecurities, weight problems, etc. Food should be used as what it is--nourishment. If your goal is to steer them toward healthier treats then you should limit the amount of ice cream (once a week, for instance) and give them what you perceive as better snacks on other days. And if you are truly hungry, you should eat not postpone eating in order to get a reward. IMHO that's screwed up thinking and sending a whole boatload of mixed emotions.

[carnivorousplant]

Mark My Words.
Nothing Good Can Come of This.
:)

[Lamia]

I voted neutral because while I don't think this little experiment poses much danger to the children, I think there's close to zero chance it will accomplish anything good either.

After reading the thread I'd skew a bit more towards "bad idea"; I hadn't considered the possibility of contributing to psychological issues about food. I don't think this alone would cause such issues, but if for whatever reason these kids are already developing food issues then this could be damaging.

[Rand Rover]

We are talking about ice cream bars, which are a specific subset of food known as "treats," i.e., things one can live without but are nice to eat on occasion. Therefore, I don't think the concerns you've raised are all that valid. We aren't talking about the classic "finish all your dinner or you don't get dessert."

I think a lot of people do have these problems with sweet foods, too, though. Like, classifying foods as "good" or "bad" and feeling guilty when they eat foods that are "bad." I don't see the point of delaying gratification. I think seeing food as a reward is kind of dangerous. It's not like you should eat when you've been "good" (or bored or upset, etc.). I mean, when I eat something, it's not tied in to my emotional state--it's tied in to whether I'm hungry or not.

Well, that makes sense to me when talking about food food, but an ice cream bar is a treat. There's no reason to ever eat an ice cream bar. Many people live just fine without ever eating a single ice cream bar (I should know, I'm one of them).

[carnivorousplant]

There's no reason to ever eat an ice cream bar.

I thought differently about that when I was 12.

[Enderw24]

Jesus Christ people. He's not chaining the to a radiator and smacking them across the face with a ham hock. If going five days without an ice cream is going to cause them to develop anorexia there are some larger issues at play

[Freudian Slit]

I don't think you have to have an ice cream bar every day. Just that I usually eat at least something sweet every day, and I don't think that's all that bad.

Most of the people I've known whose parents put restrictions on that tended to go crazy, in my experience, when allowed in an environment where they allowed to have what they wanted, whereas I usually just ate what I wanted in moderation, never gorging on it, since for me there weren't any specific restrictions. Just, you know, eat regular meals and when I was hungry.

I don't think they'll get anorexia in five days. Just that if they associate not eating with being virtuous or good, that is kind of an easy road to go down. I think it's better to treat food as just a thing. Not a good or a bad thing.

[Superhal]

This reminds me of the marshmallow experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow_experiment):

In addition, this was also cited in studies of multi-millionaires, rich people, successful entrepreneurs, etc. as one of the main factors in their success (the other factors being the ability to avoid procrastination, inability to be discouraged by criticism, and intense fear of failure.)

[BigT]

I don't get why people think he's using food as a reward. The reward is the money. They get the food either way.

And learning not to eat all your ice cream sandwiches at once is not the same as teaching your kids to not eat. It's not teaching them that food is bad--it's teaching them that delayed gratification is good. Something way too many people (including myself) need to learn.

You guys are really reaching when you try to make this about the food. To me, it screams that you guys are the ones with issues.

[Freudian Slit]

Is delayed gratification in terms of food all that good, though? I approach eating fairly intuitively. I eat when I'm hungry. The idea of putting it off to...when? seems weird.

Granted, I may be atypical. I have a very high metabolism, have never dieted or needed to, and am basically unable to eat when I'm not hungry. So for me stuff like, "I shouldn't have eaten that" or "I need to learn to eat less" are things I've never had any experience with.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

I don't know; I think kids at that age are smart enough to know that you are 'doing something' to them, like experiments or what-sort. If they are three, yes, maybe.

Besides, if they are having self control issues already with other areas of their mind, maybe the OP should work on those instead? (Big IF here, by the way)

[Really Not All That Bright]

What happens in three months when one (or both) has a stack of "banked" ice-cream sandwiches two feet high and you have no more room in the freezer for real food?

ETA: Which is to say it's an interesting idea (not a dumb one) but you need to think of the possible consequences.

[Omar Little]

Considering your wife knows you and your kids much better than I do, I will have to defer to her opinion.

[sandra_nz]

I'm not really comfortable about you using delaying eating food as a reward, but then I grew up in a household with a lot of food issues, so I may be bringing my own experiences into this.

I like the concept of teaching delayed gratfication, and your kids are definitely the right age to be learning it, but I think it could be better used in other ways.

For example, if they recieve weekly pocket money, you could say that you will match each dollar they put in their piggy bank and don't open until Christmas (or birthday, or some other date). So either they can blow their money each week, or they can save a portion of it and get a much larger sum on a particular date.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's a much better idea.

[Skammer]

I think it's an interesting experiment, but does not strike me as a particular good or bad idea in terms of child rearing. I voted neutral.

[Rand Rover]

To me, sandra_nz's idea is exactly the same as the OP's idea.

[Really Not All That Bright]

How's that? One teaches better spending habits, while one teaches eating habits which may or may not be better.

[Markxxx]

I don't know if it'd teach them anything but it'd be interesting.

When I was a wee little shaver, Coke (as in Coca-Cola) was a rare treat, a few times a year. It came in bottles and we each got two pops. Since you never knew how many more months it'd be till you got a new one, it wasn't consumed liberally.

I worked in a hotel and it was people not being able to control themselves in the moment was the idea behind the minibar

[control-z]

I don't know if paying them is really necessary. I think the experience of still having ice cream left when others don't should be lesson enough.

[Dag Otto]

My wife thinks this is one of the dumbest ideas I have had.

So where does my plan stand on the idea scale?

In order to answer this we really need your wife to post some of your other ideas here.

I voted 'bad idea' but only to be kind to you. Maybe this is brilliant compared to your other ideas.

[carnivorousplant]

I voted 'bad idea' but only to be kind to you. Maybe this is brilliant compared to your other ideas.

That's cold, man. :)

[Dag Otto]

Well, I did forget this: :D

[you with the face]

I can't see how this experiment is going to teach them any significant life lesson. Delayed gratification isn't a good all into itself, just like impulsiveness isn't bad just because it is impulsive. I mean, I don't overeat sweets, not because I'm trying to get a reward, but because I don't want the negative consequences that follow from that behavior. You're essentially trying to teach your kids the value of looking both ways before they cross the street by giving them money. But what will happen will you stop giving them money? Will they have come any closer to realizing that carelessly crossing the street could get you killed?

Have the kids shown a problem with practicing self-control and regulating how much they eat? An 11 and 9 year-old are old enough to know when they are being manipulated, and if you've already made a point of telling them that they lack willpower in the past, they'll definitely know what's going on. If they choose to gobble up all their ice cream sandwiches in one week, it probably has more to do with them not wanting to participate in this game than a lack of self-control. It wouldn't take long for me to lose patience with someone who gave me something and then paid me not to use it.

[you with the face]

Also, self-control can be self-taught amongst siblings, without any parental intervention, via competition. My twin sister and I used to do it all the time. Daddy would bring home a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts and give us one each. Then the two of us would compete to see who could eat their donut the slowest.

I still have mine. And, no you can't have any of it.

DECAYED gratification.

[Goggles03]

Sandra_nz has the right idea.

I disagree about the importance of teaching delayed gratification; it is important, otherwise every popup ad and credit card offer will cause trouble later in life.

If this is about financial habits, then use money. However, if this is about eating habits, then why use money?

[gallan]

For example, if they recieve weekly pocket money, you could say that you will match each dollar they put in their piggy bank and don't open until Christmas (or birthday, or some other date). So either they can blow their money each week, or they can save a portion of it and get a much larger sum on a particular date.

This reminds me of the allowance agreement that John Rockefeller made with his son. It was like a contract and had stuff like, "The allowance will increase 10 cents per week, each week that you keep your money in order" and "Every dollar put into savings beyond 20% of the weekly allowance will be matched dollar-for-dollar." It was basically a way to teach that the more money you have, the more money you can make.

The original idea is ok, but I think something that just used money would be a much better idea (i.e. Each week you don't spend your allowance, you'll get an extra $X.00 next week).