Psychology Behaviourist Contemporary Debate Flashcards
(19 cards)
Introduction
.based classical conditioning (association) and operant conditioning (consequences, reinforcement, punishment)
.Controversial as it is manipulating children’s behaviour and children lack awareness that this is happening
First point- outline Gills 1991 research on Australian families (HOME)
. Parents gave kids money for completing household chores (positive reinforcement)
.encouraged them to earn pocket money for tidying room, wash car, ironing (even though they thought money shouldn’t be used)
- Kids performed 20% household tasks and pitched in when necessary
Explanation- behaviour controlled by positive reinforcement ( financial reward competing chores so will continue)
should be used as its ethical- children are rewarded and parents home lives benefit, the burden is eased
First point- Implications of Gills research
Economic:
-some parents can’t afford to continually reinforce child’s behaviour with money
-Without reward- children less likely to complete chores- burden not eased
Social implication:
If children are constantly being reinforced and rewarded at home
they come to expect rewards in other contexts of their lives which may be disappointing as may not receive rewards
Point 2- Supernanny Jo Frost (ethical- naughty step)
- Parents may use conditioning techniques suggested by Jo Frost to control their children’s behaviour
-Investigate problems parents are having with kids behav and teaches techniques “naughty step”
-Naughty step is operant conditioning (punishment for unwanted behav)
Time (minutes) spent on it correlates with kids age
-When on naughty step- encourages to think about behavior and cant leave until apologised
- discourages repetition of unwanted behav - child is taken away and isolated from family and activities want to engage in
- prevents repetition of unwanted behaviour on another occasion, therefore controlling behav
Ethical implications of Supernanny- Morris (2014)
(unethical- against naughty step)
Point- Naughty step could have negative emotional effects on the child
E.G Morris (2014) argues punishments like naughty step cause long term emotional effects
Explanation- compared to adults children haven’t developed the ability to verbalise their feelings- if have negative experience cant express it
Children may feel isolated and may have damaged relationships with parents as a result of the step
Ethical implications of Supernanny- Uni of Michigan
naughty step (ethical)
Point- However, research by uni of Michigan found use of “time outs” and “naughty step” doesn’t harm children or children’s relationships with parents
E.G in study of 1400, the use of time outs didn’t increase childrens level of anxiety or depression
Dr Rachel Knight said “key to using time outs was calmness, consistency, a positive environment and making sure children understood its purpose”
Explanation- when parents said they used physical punishment- kids became more aggressive- means naughty step is a more appropriate method to control kids behav
Ethical implication- Supernanny naughty step (weaknesses in its usage)
Point- another ethical implications of using the naughty step is that there are weaknesses to its usage
E.G when parents are inconsistent in use of conditioning technique (naughty step ) Sends mixed messages to kid
Parents have every intention of following the suggestions of parenting gurus like Supernanny but stressful lives lead to inconsistencies in applying technique
Explanation- If parents are not consistent then techniques like the naughty step are unlikely to be effective in controlling the behav of kids long term
Compare naughty step to other controversial punishments (more ethical than other punishments) Holden
Point- Naughty step less controversial punishment than smacking
Smacking frowned upon and illegal in some places.
E.G
-banned in Scotland in 2020
-1 in 5 10 yr olds in UK experience physical punishment
- Research by Holden (psych at uni of Dallas) audiotaped activity in diff families over 15 night period
- In 33 families there were 41 incidences of smacking
- 10 mins after being smacked children were misbehaving again in about 75% of incidences
Explanation- This shows smacking does not work, it does not effectively control the behaviour of kids
Strength and ethical implication of Holdens research on smacking
Strength- Gives real time info because its an obs rather than parents lying about smacking their kids in self- reports they give
Ethical implication- smacking can lead to more aggression, anxiety, depression, challenging behaviour and doesn’t promote parent child relationships
Point 1- Use of conditioning in schools
Point- Conditioning techniques are used in schools to control the behaviour of students. In cases where they have clear benefits they should be used.
E.g Le Francois (2000)
- maximising pleasant stimuli in the classroom (attractive bright board displays and laughter)
- minimising unpleasant stimuli (shouting and negative comments) -students have more positive feelings towards their working environment.
Explanation- This will mean their academic performance will improve
Social implication of Le Francois (2000) research in school
Therefore, social implication of research
-has practical applications to the education system
-research useful because it suggests classical conditioning principles can be used by teachers to control students behaviour
-improves students academic performance in school so should be used.
McAllister et al (1969)- inappropriate talking in schools (unethical)
operant conditioning techniques shouldn’t be used in schools because although effective, they are unethical.
E.G McAllister et al (1996) inappropriate talking in high school English classes
-In the condition where teacher praise and disapprove- decrease in inappropriate talking whereas in control there wasn’t
-Operant conditioning was used in this study by disapproval to punish students for unwanted behaviour
Explanation- Negative ethical implications as teacher may be inconsistent with giving praise/ disapproval; using it on some students sometimes for doing an unwanted behaviour but not on others.
Could mean
- students become confused, reject schools rules
- students feel picked on, resulting in lower self esteem and underachievement
operant conditioning shouldnt be used to control students behav due to negative emotional impacts on students
Ethical implications: Psychology today (2018) article- “motivating children without rewards”
Psychology today (2018) article- “motivating children without rewards” explains ethical implications of using operant conditioning techniques to control childrens behav
Explanation- article outlines
- how rewards are used at home and at school as incentives to encourage good behaviour and good grades.
-Rewards make behaviour more likely to be repeated.
-People can be motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
E.g operant conditioning principles encourage people to perform “well” for reward
-provides incentive to continue to perform this good behaviour. -behaviour is driven by extrinsic motivation.
intrinsic motivation (doing for self satisfaction not external consequence) more beneficial success in later life
-won’t always be rewarded for every task done in adulthood e.g washing up
-rewards should be used strategically otherwise intrinsic motivation is undermined.
Deci (1971)- Example of intrinsic motivation being undermined by rewards
Deci 1971
College students work on a puzzle
1/2 were told they’d be paid for doing it other half were told they wouldn’t
After short breaks students left to do whatever they wanted they could continue with puzzle or do something else
Students not paid kept working
Researchers concluded paying students (extrinsic reward) diminished intrinsic motivation to do puzzle
Suggests operant conditioning techniques shouldn’t be used to control/ manipulate behav
Lepper et al (1973) - additional support as to why giving rewards shouldn’t be used as it diminishes intrinsic motivation
- primary school kids into 3 groups
- one group incentive- certificate for playing with the colouring pens
- one group- no certificate
- one group- certificate as surprise
Found:
Certificate group (extrinsic motivation)- less motivated to play with the pens after the study than the children with intrinsic motivation (play with them to have fun)
Therefore, supports Deci’s research that children being given rewards are not always useful as Leppers research shows it diminishes intrinsic motivation
Operant conditioning (extrinsic rewards) shouldnt be used
Ethical implication
Point- Ethical implication here as this research demonstrates that in some cases positive reinforcement means children don’t learn intrinsically valuable behaviours (do something for no material gain)
Means careful consideration needs to be given to what we want children to learn and “bring” out behaviours we are acicvely trying to encourage
E.g sharing toys with siblings morally correct rather than for sweet/ reward from parents
Important to learn morals and long term skills e.g kind hard working rather than do for the sake of reward with no understanding of why its good to learn these behaviours
Levitt (2010) However to card 18 (financial incentive tipping)
Showed in a US programme academic achievement of students was improved by giving financial incentive.
Benefits society as more school leavers are better educated and able to fill important job roles
Social implication of rewarding behaviour (card 16)
Rewarding teh completion of small tasks at home means children ome to expect it in wider society
E.g rewards (tips) for simply doing their job
Intrinsic motivation minimal and only do what’s required to get frequent rewards
Debate about waiting staff getting tips for simply doing their job (should tipping be encouraged?)
Conclusion
Conditioning techniques should not be used in the home because
- don’t work for preventing repetition of unwanted behav in long term
- emotionally distressing for children if not used consistently
Should be used in schools because
-they improve the learning and achievement of all students if used strategically
Should be used to encourage behaviours considered important to be continued into later life
