I recently got “into it” with some people about the futility of spanking. Deciding to figuratively put my money where my mouth is, I started actively doing positive reinforcement. I’ve always done it with praise as the reward, but I decided to try using M&M’s and other small candies. Doing a desired behavior = 1 candy.
I did it for 3 days so far. It’s been incredible how it gets her to change focus from doing what she wants to doing what I want. Specifically, we were using an abacus for learning counting and simple addition. My daughter was just playing with the beads and wouldn’t focus on doing the things I asked (“Move just 3 beads”). When she did it once, I said, “Great job counting out the right number of beads!” and rewarded her with an M&M. After that, she was much more receptive to my instruction and brief lesson.
But the real lesson was to come later.
I let her use the computer for 10 minutes before bed. I left the room for a few minutes while she was playing. She stops playing and comes over to me. She hands me a jelly bean and says, "Good job letting me play the 'puter."
Positive reinforcement works for getting someone to do something you want (behave), but not so great for getting them to not do something you don’t want (misbehave).
That’s where a punishment comes in. Contrary to vernacular, “negative reinforcement” doesn’t involve punishment to stop a behavior, it’s removing something negative to encourage a behavior (* reinforcement is a reward).
Positive punishment is adding a stimulus the subject doesn’t want. Negative punishment is removing a stimulus the subject does want. A spanking or a “sad sticker” or dunce cap is a positive punishment, taking away TV privileges or a toy is negative punishment.
It can be difficult to use lack of reinforcement to reduce a bad behavior. Kids understand that if they do something good they get candy, but simply not getting candy for doing something bad doesn’t translate.
You could do something of a “jar” system, where when the kid earns candy they don’t get it immediately but it goes into a visible jar that they can have at the end of the day. If they misbehave, candy gets removed from the jar.
Though, that only works when there’s already candy to remove, so it requires a baseline reward (no matter what you get 5 candies; more if you’re good, less if you’re bad) which can itself mess with conditioning. Using dimes or quarters might be more nutritionally responsible.
But I’m not really one to speak. Me and my siblings grew up in a “spankin” household and all 3 of us grew up as pretty straight-laced dweebs without any seething emotional detriments.
I’m aware of reinforcement vs. punishment and the common mistake of negative reinforcement being confused with punishment. I was glossing it over in the OP just to get to the funny mimicry that was going on
Child is taking a bath just before bedtime. Splashes water all over the bathroom. Mom says “making a mess like that is naughty. Now you have to stay up and help clean up your mess.” and the child is put to work helping to mop up the bathroom, hang the soaked run over the curtain rod, etc.
Lesson learned by the child: messing up the bathroom = getting to stay up 15 minutes later, and have fun with the mop, etc. That was not the lesson mother intended.
you use your TEETH to eat M&M’s? that is barbaric! You put the M&M’s into your mouth, and let them melt and get gooey. (sorry for the hijack)
Back to parenting… I agree with using a reward system for good behavior, and a consequence for bad behavior. Taking a priviledge they enjoy works well. It doesn’t “harm” them, yet it will teach them a lesson that goes for years and years!!! Even as an adult, the action/consequence lesson is present.
I do agree with a spanking/swat on the butt/hand if the situation is dangerous. Approaching a hot stove to touch it = a swat on the hand. The discomfort the child feels from the swat, is much less damaging than the burn on the hand that could scar. Redirecting, will NOT teach them that the stove is hot. Only that there is something over in the kitchen that Mommy and Daddy don’t want you near. Their curiosity will possibly get the best of them.
I believe strongly that children need to learn that negative things happen when you misbehave. If all the child ever sees is reinforcement for postive behavior, how are they going to handle the bad stuff? (an F on a school paper, a boss who is displeased with your report you submitted…etc) If as a child, they learn about negative consequences, that helps to make them more adjusted to the reality of adult life.
You’re right about the definitions of reinforcement and punishment, but you are absolutely wrong that reinforcement cannot be used to reduce unwanted behavior. We use this technique constantly in behavior therapy, it’s called DRO (Different Reinforcement of Other behavior), and it involves rewarding the non-occurence of the target behavior for a set period of time. For example, a child may get a sticker if he has no occurrences of hitting peers for 5 minutes.
The “jar” system you are talking about is a form of punishment called response cost. Why is it punishment? Well, as you pointed out, negative punishment means something is removed to reduce bad behavior (in your example, the candy from the jar).
