(12) Unit 2 - Using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of children - Behaviourist Contemporary Debate

What is the core of the debate of using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of children?

Whilst psychologists such as Pavlov and Skinner have shown that it is possible to condition animals, this debate centres around whether we should use this information and apply it to human children in order to control their behaviour. Should we be manipulating the behaviour of children in this way, and what long term impact does this have on their health and wellbeing?

What research could be used to suggest that using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of children at home is ethical?

Operant conditioning is used in the home by parents everyday as a form of coercion. This can be in the form of sticker charts, treats at the end of the week as a token economy programme or simply just a treat for one act of good behaviour. One might argue that positive reinforcement and punishment are a commonplace in most households.

Positive reinforcement is often used by parents to increase non-essential but desirable behaviours of children at home such as tidying their bedroom. Gill (1998) found that paying children to complete household chores resulted in them preforming 20% of all household chores.

Steevas et al (2012) also found that behaviour modification techniques were successful in reducing the number of hours children spent on screen-based activities.

In terms of economic implications, would Gill and Steevas’ research into conditioning at home be viewed as ethical?

Gill - The child is learning the value of money; if they complete tasks they might prefer not to do they will be rewarded financially (much like in the world of work as adults). They are also learning skills that will be important for their own independence, e.g. how to do the laundry.

Steevas - in 2014/15, the NHS spent £6.1 billion on treating obesity related ill health. This is set to raise to £9.7 billion a year by 2050.

Yes, their research would suggest that it is beneficial to use conditioning techniques within the home as not only will they learn the value of money but children who lead more sedentary lifestyles and have more screentime are more likely to be obese and develop health-related problems in adulthood. We have an ethical obligation to prevent these illnesses.

In terms of social implications, would conditioning at home be viewed as ethical?

Behaviour modification techniques have helped parents see that punishment does not work in changing ‘naughty’ behaviour. Parenting and self-help sites have been developed to teach parents to reduce the use of punishments and to control children’s behaviour and instead use more ethical methods with long term benefits.

However, conditioning techniques mean that corporal punishment (smacking) is currently legal in most of the UK, but in 2020 Scotland placed a ban on it and Wales followed in 2022.

Why could conditioning in the home be viewed as unethical?

We are giving the child the false belief that all mundane tasks will be rewarded which is unrealistic as there is no payback for completing chores in adulthood, for example.

Morris (2014) claims the ‘naughty’ step (advocated for by Jo Frost) can have long term emotional effects on a child as they cannot reflect appropriately on their own behaviour, impacting their development.

If parents cannot remain calm and consistent, the punishment will be less effective, causing distress and anxiety for the child as expectations are unclear.

What research could be used to suggest that using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of children at school is ethical?

LeFrancois (2000) suggests that classical conditioning can be used to improve student performance. Teachers should maximise pleasant stimuli (displays, nice smells etc.) and minimise unpleasant stimuli (shouting, negative comments) in order to condition students to associate the classroom environment with positive feelings.

What research could be used to suggest that using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of children at school is unethical?

Lepper et al (1973) suggests that classical conditioning techniques are harmful to a child’s development. They found that, when promised a reward, children spent less time (half as much) on a ‘nice picture’ drawing task compared to children not promised a reward, suggesting they were motivated by the reward rather than intrinsic motivation to succeed.

In terms of economic implications, would LeFrancois’ research into conditioning at school be viewed as ethical?

If financial rewards (positive reinforcements) in schools increase grades, this could benefit society and the economy in the long run; if children leave school with better grades, they are more likely to get better paying jobs and make more valuable contributions to society without relying on support from the government (Levitt et al, 2010).

In terms of economic implications, would Lepper’s research into conditioning at school be viewed as ethical?

(NO) Gen Z research has shown that children brought up with conditioning techniques expect higher financial rewards than they achieve in early careers. Forbes (2019) states that an average graduate will earn about 23% less than they expect to earn when leaving university.

In terms of social implications, would conditioning at school be viewed as ethical?

many Gen Z employees will seek workplaces with strong moral and ethical values which had led to a scrutiny of corporate practices and a demand for transparency as well as social responsibility.

However, the impact of ‘lost learning’ is not experienced equally. Children with SEND, free school meals and children from certain ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately experiencing suspension and exclusion (negative punishment). Gypsy/Roma pupils have the highest rate, followed by Travellers of Irish heritage and black Caribbean pupils. Chinese pupils have the lowest rate of exclusion. This causes questions to arise as to whether disruptive behaviours are the issue or whether this is the result of stereotypes.

In terms of ethical implications, would conditioning at school be viewed as ethical?

Coleman et al (2009) found that pupils who had mild or severe conduct issues in school were more likely to leave school with no qualifications and go on to suffer long-term problems in adulthood such as depression, anxiety, divorce, teenage pregnancy and financial problems. This implies that we have an ethical obligation to tackle behaviour in schools using conditioning so that people have better chances at life, and there are social implications for society if we do not stop disruptive behaviour. There is also an economic implication with the cost of teenage pregnancy, mental health services and benefits.

However, token economy programmes (TEPs) could be open to corruption, giving teachers too much power which may be viewed as unethical.

What research could be used to suggest that using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of vulnerable individuals is ethical?

Lovaas (1987) developed applied behaviour analysis (ABA) to increase social interactions for children with autism. Initially, the child is rewarded regularly for appropriate social behaviours, but over time, these rewards are reduced and only issued if the behaviour displayed is close to the ideal target behaviour.

What research could be used to suggest that using conditioning techniques to control the behaviour of vulnerable individuals is unethical?

Using conditioning techniques on children with psychological and medical conditions may be seen as inappropriate because conditioning only treats symptoms, meaning it is likely that undesirable behaviour would re-emerge if reinforcement is removed.

In terms of economic implications, would conditioning vulnerable individuals be viewed as ethical?

Schools can make token economy programmes accessible by using low-cost rewards, e.g. free time or prefect positions.

However, Lovaas’ ABA as it was originally designed is demanding and requires 40 hours per week which is costly and arguably, unnecessary.

In terms of social implications, would conditioning vulnerable individuals be viewed as ethical?

Conditioning vulnerable children allows them to behave in a more ‘normal’ manner, increasing the likelihood of them being accepted in society.

In terms of ethical implications, would conditioning vulnerable individuals be viewed as ethical?

Vulnerable children may not be able to fully understand or consent to conditioning techniques. It is crucial to involve caregivers and ensure that the child’s best interests and prioritised.

Conditioning could be misused to enforce compliance and used to make life easier for parents and teachers rather than fostering genuine understanding or growth in the child.