conditioning to control the behaviour of children

home - YES

has been shown to be effective in preventing bed-wetting

home - YES: benjamin & gebbert

• 90 parents rated their youngest night trained child on interactions during night training

• positive reinforcements (hugging, kissing) encouraged staying dry

• punishment (shaming, spanking) delayed learning

• operant conditioning helps learn key behaviours, punishment hinders progress

home - YES: ethical implication

• encourages positive behaviour

• safe environment to increase likelihood of encouraged behaviour

home - NO

smacking has been shown to be ineffective

home - NO: george holden

• audiotaped families in the evening over 15 night period

• 41 incidents of smacking or hitting

• ten minutes after being smacked, children were misbehaving again in 75% of incidents

• therefore, hitting to control behaviour is ineffective + counterproductive

home - NO: ethical implication

• smacking causes aggressive behaviour

• may create abusive adults who can pass on these traits, continuing the cycle with their children

school - YES

can increase continuity of positive behaviour

school - YES: lee ross, lewin

• spiral model: as each cycle pass, stricter more rewarding methods used to see how student behaviour develop over time

• more positive reinforcement → more likely to respond than when less positive reinforcement was used

• therefore, posit. reinfo. can yield continuity of positive behaviour

school - YES: social implication

• creates well behaved children who go on to behave appropriately in society

• leads to reduced crime rate and a more cohesive society

school - NO

reduces their intrinsic motivation

school - NO: lepper et al

• one group children told they would get reward playing with markers

• another group got no reward, then got surprise reward

• told get no reward, significantly less interested in playing with markers

• therefore, using conditioning can reduce intrinsic motivation to do tasks, shouldn’t be used

school - NO: economic implication

• creates strain on a limited school budget

• increases extrinsic motivation and anticipation for rewards in place of completing expected behaviours

vulnerable groups - YES

research has shown that time outs are effective

vulnerable groups - YES: wolf, risely and mees

• time outs effective in reducing stuttering and behavioural issues

• token economic successful in teaching reading, increasing work time, improving behaviour by rewarding positive behaviour

• therefore, operant cond. should be used can enhance behaviour through strategic use of rewards and punishment

vulnerable groups - YES: social implication

• creates children who can regulate emotions + reflect on negative behaviour

• adults with emotional maturity

vulnerable groups - NO

it has been found to be unethical and lacking any proof of effectiveness

vulnerable groups - NO: the independent

• judge rotenberg centre ruled by judge to continue using electric shocks to manage inappropriate behaviours in special needs students

• some parents praised the technique as life-changing

• therefore, shouldn’t be unethical, no longer method that is used

vulnerable groups - NO: ethical implication

• mass electric shocks can cause more damage beyond conditioning process

• can also become long-term issue that cause psychologlocial damage

vulnerable groups conclusion

• used over a long period of time both in school and at home to encourage positive behaviour and discourage negative

• using rewards reduces intrinsic motivation

• therefore, conditioning only used sparingly and only in appropriate situations + using rewards should be avoided