Reinforcers - Collaborative problem solving and SDT - self determination theory

Reinforcers -  I believe we must differentiate between reinforcers that are intrinsic – the process is rewarding or there is goal identification – the end product , rather than some extrinsic reward that parents offer.

We should be guided by the questions ? –how does my intervention impact on my kid's needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness- SDT and how my interventions will meet both kids and parents concerns and solve problems - CPS .

 If the kid feels he needs some extrinsic motivation, I would first clarify his goals – for eg practicing piano 5 times a week and  see how some extrinsic motivation will help him achieve his goal. Here he wants to meet his goal,  the reward is there just to help him get there. What happens in practice is that kids are willing to suffer  - practice or do homework for a price.

Competence -  If a kid is reluctant to engage in an activity and needs to practice to acquire a skill , extrinsic motivation on the one hand can promote competence, but impacts negatively on autonomy and relatedness. A CPS approach is likely to uncover other concerns of the kid and unsolved problems other than motivation. When the reward is self determined , it is not controlling and the reward has less impact on intrinsic motivation.

Extrinsic reinforcers  may be useful with tasks that are manual and require little thinking as they tend to narrow focus.  The promise of a pay-off or a reward interferes with higher levels of thinking and creativity  which are  exploratory or ' wider in  focus'.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),a study showed that entirely different areas of the brain are activated by the same task depending on whether a person anticipates a payoff or not. When focused on a reward, the brain switches off those areas   associated with voluntary or self-initiated activities. '

Pairing an intrinsic reward -  the value expressed by the behavior with an extrinsic reward converts the behavior – a social norm into an economic norm -  so by giving a kid a reward for helping or befriending a lonely kid – a social norm has been given economic value ,  this is what I get for doing that. The internal pride and intrinsic reward of being able express one's self and values gets lost.

The problem with praise is not the quantity – over praising but praise itself- its judgmental nature  . Instead we should use  neutral informational feedback and questions that help kids self asses and reflect on how they impact on their world. Behavior or sticker charts are rather different to a kid self assessing and monitoring his behavior without external forms of control in place.

Extrinsic reinforcers may be helpful in the short –term but like medication I doubt whether any parent would like to see them as a long term solution. They also undermine intrinsic motivation and internalization of values, don't generalize and if their effect is lost when rewards are withdrawn.  They get the kid to ask – what will I get or what is in it for me , instead of asking  and reflecting   -  what type of person  do I want to be , do my actions reflect on my values ?

Rewards -a Collaborative problem solving and SDT approach

In a Sunday times article Professor Richard Ryan , the co-author of the Self determination motivational theory ,  Should we reward kids for A grades ?  warns parents not to reward children for A grades.

 His arguments for grades are similar to the CPS – collaborative problem solving approach discouraging rewards for good behavior.

1 Kids are naturally motivated to be curious and learn, do well and behave in an adaptive and appropriate way. Rewards undermine intrinsic motivation as kids see themselves learning and behaving only when there is a reward. Kids do well if they can and not if they want to. If they are struggling we need to ask what is getting in their way and how we can help them. When it comes to motivation we can try create an environment which is conducive to kids motivating themselves.


2 Rewards put the responsibility for learning and behaving on the parent.' Now the parent is the one who has to monitor the child, instead of the child assimilating and really internalizing the value of learning and hard work, (pro-social behavior ),which is really what we want to develop. The locus of control shifts from the child to the parent. Instead of asking what type of person do I want to be – a caring person who is curious and loves learning, kids learn to ask what will I get or what will be done to me ?


3 Rewards reward outcomes and often negative behaviors and values such as cheating, non-cooperation, not taking risks,  that help kids get good grades. They ignore the process of learning, the activity itself , valued behavior   and the feelings of the whole child.


4 Rewards actually cause the very problems – poor grades and maladaptive behavior – they are supposed to remedy. Rewards increase stress and anxiety which in itself can compromise performance.


5 They way to go is to avoid rewards and instead express appreciation and encouragement. We can be supportive and love a child unconditionally no matter how well he does in school or how he behaves. We can take steps to foster the child's competence, and his perception of being autonomous, self –directed and help him enjoy whatever he does. This will lead to a happier and self –motivated child.

Child Obesity - Unconditional Parenting and SDT self determined theory

In an article on childhood obesity Dr Arya Sharma quotes Whitaker RC (2011). The childhood obesity epidemic: lessons for preventing socially determined health conditions. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

 He says that childhood obesity is a reflection on societal norms and values. The current way of living, consumerism-advertising, fast food and sweets diet ,  lack of community, and multiple stresses  contribute to obesity. Instead of following the conventional wisdom and target 'prevention' measures at kids when they are young, we need to change societal norms and values.

There is a lot of stress in the lives of kids. It is well known the connection between  stress and weight gain. The hormone cortisol converts muscle into fat to help us deal with stress, so strict dieting and exercise alone won't help if we do not change our  life styles  and reduce stress.

We also need to examine certain structures in society that contribute to consumerism and obesity.  The unlimited expose to advertising and unhealthy foods , especially sweets makes it very difficult for kids to make better and healthier choices .  Naomi Aldort says it is not about teaching kids to make better choices but rather creating an environment where kids can make choices.

'Choosing sugar is shaped by the addictive nature of sugar; it is not a free choice. When free to choose, the child knows what he needs. However, a child who “needs” candy or a movie is not free; the experience of candy or TV has created the illusion of a need. That which chooses is manipulated by the choice. The industry does a great job of manufacturing a sense of need.'

 In order to address the problem of obesity Dr Sharma quoting the  article  says ' both children and adults need to find purpose and meaning in life , which requires lifelong growth and development … autonomy , competence, mastery, self-acceptance, positive relations with others and transcending self through commitment or connection to something or someone.'

These words resonate with me , but I am afraid that one would need to read Alfie Kohn's Unconditional Parenting in order to put into practice  his suggestions.

AK in his UP book quotes Deci  and Ryan. Kids have the ability to make decisions in a way that meets their needs , they are equipped with a gyroscope of natural self regulation. When we control kids excessively – by using rewards and praise to get compliance- they start to become dependent on external sources of control. The gyroscope begins to wobble and they lose their ability to regulate themselves. Food consumption is a very literal example of this.

A parenting style that does not support ' autonomy ' will promote obesity in their kids, even if we provide   kids with restricted food choices and teach them about healthy eating. 

If we observe the eating patterns of kids over time, we notice how some days they hardly eat and then suddenly put away huge portions. If they eat something fattening, they will tend to eat less, or something   less caloric, afterward.  In terms of how much they eat then, children seem to have a remarkable capacity for self-regulation. Unless, that is , we try to run their bodies for them. 

In an experiment observing 77 kids between the ages of 2 and 4 and their parents, it was discovered that those parents who insisted their kids eat only during meal times rather than when they were hungry or who encouraged them to clean their plates, even when they obviously were not hungry, or who used food – especially deserts as a reward wound up with kids who lost their ability to regulate their caloric intake. Kids who had few opportunities to learn to control their own food intake came to stop trusting their bodies ' cues about when they were hungry . One result – many of them were already starting to get fat.    – Alfie Kohn  Unconditional Parenting

This claim – that people have lost the ability to self regulate -  to eat when they are hungry and stop when they are full – is the basis against traditional dieting. One does not learn to self regulate – eat when hungry and stop when full.

Another problem is that parents will bribe or 'incentivize '  kids in order to eat healthy food. In the Kefir drink experiment  ' good jobs '  and promises of reward  got kids to drink many glasses of this health drink .Some time later the kids were offered the drink without an incentive or praise  attached. Those kids who were previously praised for every time they downed a glass , now  did not touch the drink , those who received a reward had a limited interest , whereas those who did not receive any reward or praise gladly showed  interest in the drink and enjoyed themselves having the drink. The kids who did not receive any reward or verbal praise developed some intrinsic satisfaction and  motivation or a taste for the drink. Those kids who received rewards or praise initially drank a lot, but then lost interest in the drink.  – Alfie Kohn – Punished by Rewards

 In order to promote intrinsic motivation for healthy eating we should avoid any forms of reward, and  let kids participate not only in choosing food items but also help to prepare meals.

Reinforcement or Reflection?

The interventions we choose reflect our view of children.

 If children are just the sum of their behaviors, motivated by rewards and punishments it makes sense to use reinforcements and rules. But if children try to make meaning of what happens in their lives, reflection will foster not only intrinsic motivation and dynamic intelligence but also help them become ethical people. We need to help them ' construct' moral meaning, figure for themselves and each other – how one ought to act.

Problem solving requires the ' executive functions' of hindsight – to reflect on past solutions and their outcomes and forethought to predict the likely outcomes of potential solutions. This type of reflection and anticipation relies on ' episodic –personal memory. The construction of  personal meaning of an action is more important than the details of the actions themselves and this is what kids take from experiences . When kids are rewarded for compliance, the personal meaning is converted into economic norms , factual information – static intelligence. If I do this I will get.

 Rewards or even non-verbal rewards like praise may help in the short term to get compliance, but in the long term instead of reinforcing behavior, their intrinsic motivation is undermined and they loose interest. Instead of promoting ethics, dynamic intelligence, thinking and brain growth , rewards  promote the most primitive moral thinking. Brain research shows that when kids are promised rewards they use less of the area of the brain responsible for creativity and initiative.

Collaborative problem solving does more than ' reinforce'. It involves the kid in anticipation and reflection, fostering dynamic intelligence and learning.

 ' The ultimate goal of engaging in any kind of learning activity is to create, elaborate, or reinforce the specific synaptic connections in the learner's brain. This can only occur through creating memories that support the types of connections we wish to make. '  - The RDI – relationship development book ( autism spectrum)

In order to support personal memory , dynamic intelligence and moral development we need according to Alfie Kohn 

 to maximize the opportunities for kids to make choices, to discover and learn for themselves

to create a caring community in the classroom and family so that kids at school and within the family have the opportunity to do these things together with others.

Focus on the process , social norms and values, not the money

As a young man I would always question the wisdom of spending much money on making  weddings, barmitvahs, family or school reunions until I was privileged to make a barmitvah, a wedding, attend reunions.  I then understood that money can't buy the feelings, the experiences , the attachments and relatedness that come with these occasions.

Dan Ariely talks of how we   convert social norms into economic norms

 Instead of talking about motives, feelings and values parents focus on behavior and convert the social norms into an economic ones when they use rewards, punishments and consequences. 

 In schools – instead of focusing on the process of learning, the learning experiences , we focus on data, test scores and how much they can buy kids in the job market. 

In the work place , managers incorrectly think that they can motivate workers with incentives. Everyone agrees that workers should be paid well, but managers don't appreciate that employees value ' relatedness , being able to direct your work , autonomy, being valued and respected above  'incentives'. 

When it comes to religion and character education rewards are used to get kids to do good deeds. A school tried to encourage kids to return lost articles or money found in school or on the playground by rewarding them. All of a sudden , kids were finding so many coins on the playground. A kid by mistake kicked a ball that hit a teacher. He ran away instead of offering help  -  he did not want to get caught. Rewards and punishments not only convert social norms into economic ones , they encourage and promote immoral behavior.

We should be helping kids to think in the following way.

A man who was about to go overseas for while approached his neighbor's  10 year old son. He asked him to look after his dog, take him for walks etc while he was away on holiday.

He asked the kid  -   How much ?

The kid -  I am willing to pay  $15


Parents , teachers and society as a whole should be helping people convert experiences from economic norms to social norms. If we focus on intrinsic motivation and reward we can help kids focus on the process and be guided by social norms

Allan

Limit setting - 1 kids' moral development

Setting limits and boundaries is an important part of parenting . However the way we set limits can impact on the moral development of children and set off challenging behavior and the resistance of kids with difficulties.




In this post I share Alfie Kohn's insights on setting limits and the moral development of children.



In other posts I hope to share

1 how CPS collaborative problem solving = Plan B is effective at limit setting

2 how the traditional perspective of children – that they are born to test limits , feel secure because of the limits are myths, and are used to justify more limits and punishment

3 Limit setting should not be used to restrict kids but rather create structure that offers them more freedom.




' The question - Thomas Gordon , the author of P.E.T – Parent Effectiveness Training says is not whether limits and boundaries are necessary but the question is who sets them ? Is it parents unilaterally imposing limits on their children or are parents and kids working together to figure out what makes sense.?



The question then becomes what kinds of limits and boundaries are we talking about - how specific or behavioral should they be as opposed to broadly conceived guidelines that can inform a lot of our activities - a limit on not hurting other people , addressing the needs of others etc



Don't we want kids to derive limits and guidelines on how to act from the situation itself and what other people need ? If so, then our coming up with limits, and especially specific behavioral limits and imposing them on kids makes it less likely that kids will become moral people who say that the situation decrees a kind of a boundary for appropriate ways to act and I will be guided by that my whole life , not just internalized but it's about what's between me and the other I come across.



An example would be the different thinking a kid would have when faced with a bowl of cookies and would love to eat all of them because ' I am hungry and I love cookies '. When the parent imposes a limit – ' You can take only one cookie ' = I cannot take more because mom said I can have only one or else , or where the kid thinks ,' I would love to eat all the cookies but there are others kids around too and they are also hungry so I will make sure that everyone has cookies too.' When parents say ' you must share because I said so' and follow up with a patronizing pat on the head ' good sharing ', the wrong message gets internalized. I am sharing because mom says so and because I will get a verbal reward for sharing. ' AK interview

When we use consequences to reinforce our limits and moral behavior we end up promoting self interest at the expense of others.  The following incident that took place on the school playground proves the point well.  A teacher saw a kid kick a football which  hit a fellow teacher who then fell from the force of the ball and got injured. The kid ran off. When the other teacher confronted the kid about his moral responsibility to go and help the teacher – the kid responded that he ran away so that he would not be caught and be punished.  In a situation where there are no consequences or a discipline code , the kid would be careful not to hurt others , not because of what might be done to him= consequences  , but how his actions have consequences on others. And if he by mistake did injure the teacher , he would in an autonomous manner engage in the moral act of restitution and go and help the teacher and offer an apology

'So when we want to focus on our children's moral development we have to recast the ideas discussed in most parenting books that boundaries and limits are thought of as restrictions that adults impose on children. But shouldn't our goal be for children to refrain from doing certain things because they are wrong? The limits on kid's behavior , in other words , should be experienced as intrinsic to the situation. We want them to ask ' How will doing X make the other kid feel? ' and not- 'Am I allowed to do X ' or Will I get in trouble for doing X' - Unconditional Parenting

Rewards - CPS , SDT - Part 2

In my blog on using rewards together with CPS – collaborative problem solving I suggested that we should try use rewards not as incentives but to give the activity an association of fun.






In the article below Deci and Ryan prove without a doubt from a meta-analysis that extrinsic motivators like rewards undermine intrinsic motivation.


http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2001_DeciKoestnerRyan.pdf    ( 1-5/15 )



The negative effect of the rewards was minimized when rewards were not given in a 'controlling manner ' but rather as ' informational feedback 'and the rewards were task-non-contingent. The controlling aspect not only has a negative effect on perceived self determination but also on relatedness - relationships.







'Deci and Ryan specified three types of reward contingencies: task-noncontingent rewards, which do not require engaging in the activity per se but are instead given for some other reasons

such as simply participating in the experiment; task-contingent rewards, which require doing or completing the target activity; and performance - contingent rewards, which require performing the activity well, matching a standard of excellence, or surpassing

a specified criterion (e.g., doing better than half of the oilier participants).'



'To. summarize, results of the meta-analysis make clear that the undermining of intrinsic motivation by tangible rewards is indeed a significant issue. Whereas verbal rewards tended to enhance intrinsic motivation (although not for children and not when the rewards were given controllingly) and neither unexpected tangible rewards nor task-non contingent tangible rewards affected intrinsic motivation,

expected tangible rewards did significantly and substantially undermine intrinsic motivation, and this effect was quite robust. Furthermore, the undermining was especially strong for children. '



I will relate to verbal rewards in a future blog. In a sentence , if verbal rewards take the form of neutral informational feedback or helping a person self evaluate , assess and reflect , intrinsic motivation is likely to be enhanced.



Rewards are attractive as they are powerful motivators in the short – run. They get you obedience and compliance. If tasks are manual and don't require thinking, rewards get the job done quicker. For parents ( not of challenging children ) a reward or a threat can get the job done. The problem is the long term costs especially in the areas of intrinsic motivation, relatedness and competence.







The article says that rewards have a positive effect on perceived competence and would promote intrinsic motivation . The effect is lost because of the controlling nature of rewards and the negative effect on perceived self determination.



From other articles on the SDT site , Alfie Kohn etc I would suggest that the positive effect on perceived competence would not contribute to intrinsic motivation because the rewards enhance perceived competence not as a PROCESS , but the SELF as an object . Rewards enhance a 'fixed mindset ' rather than a ' growth mindset '. People who have a fixed mindset , that they are smart or competent will avoid challenging or difficult tasks and focus on sustaining their 'image' , rather than being involved in learning or other forms of creativity. They are less likely to engage in the activity in the future.



I received 2 interesting comments ( one PM )



I talked about a kid using extrinsic motivation when it is self determined to help him cope with time- on- task, practicing piano. A mom wrote that the hour of practice seemed an eternity to my child.



' I decided that if my son could put that hour into perspective, he might not feel overwhelmed by "an hour". I created a large pie chart -- larger the better so that you can "emphasize" the small slice -- and divided it into one hour slices. We colored in the sleeping hours, school hours, homework time, practice time, and free time. When he saw how much free time he would have if he efficiently tackled the "must dos", the homework and practice didn't seem so overwhelming. The slices were a small part of his day. '



The mom dealt with the issue by really understanding the concerns of her child and problem solving. The collaborative problem solving approach holds that most kids are already intrinsically motivated to do well, kids would prefer to do well, so if they are having trouble the problem is not motivational. The problem is more likely to be one of lagging skills, competence, the child's concerns are not being addressed and he is feeling controlled and coerced.



I think SDT says the same thing. Kids , people are intrinsically motivated to do well , and when they are struggling , the things that are getting in the way are usually competence , lack of relatedness, and lack of autonomy. People are not lacking the motivation. The traditional way of understanding all problems is to attribute it to the fact that the kid is lacking motivation , if he wants to do well , he would do well . CPS holds , and I think it is true of SDT , people do well if they can , not if they want to.



Nicolas Connault wrote ' I'm not sure that trying to achieve intrinsic motivation for ALL desirable behaviors is a realistic goal. Children find it easier to be intrinsically motivated, but I don't think it's possible to be intrinsically motivated to do everything we do as adults. '



I agree that many activities are not intrinsically motivating but at least we should aspire to be competent , the activity is self determined and autonomous , we should experience ' relatedness ' to those we interact with , and the natural outcomes are important and desirable.



Alfie Kohn –in ' Punished by Rewards ' makes 6 recommendations on how to minimize the damage of rewards.



1 Get rewards out of people's faces

- reduce the salience of rewards, make them less conspicuous, give them out privately, and avoid making a big fuss.



2 Offer rewards after the fact , as a surprise.

This helps blur the connection between previous behavior and the reward . The downside is people begin to expect rewards in the future and this will impact on intrinsic motivation.



3 Never turn the quest for rewards into a contest by limiting them artificially.

Competition and rivalry have negative effects relatedness, competence and autonomy .



4 Make rewards as similar as possible to the task.

– so endogenous rewards , for eg giving kids books, trips etc that deal with the task and thereby reduce the gap between what kids are doing and what they are getting for it.



5 Give people as much choice as possible about how rewards are used

- They can participate in the evaluation process of what has been done and how and to whom rewards should be given. Care should be taken that rewards remain something ' by the way ' , not salient and given without a fuss.



6 Try to immunize individuals against the motivation-killing effects of rewards

- By focusing and emphasizing the intrinsic value of what is being done.



I would add -



Show people how to use self- determined rewards to help them achieve their goals or keep on task.



Show people that many tasks may not be intrinsically rewarding but are more valued when done in an autonomous way and the natural outcomes are desirable.



Focus less on motivation , but more on autonomy, competence and relatedness.



Allan

Rewards - CPS , SDT

I have discussed the question in my ABA vs CPS blog
http://allankatz-parentingislearning.blogspot.com/2010/09/aba-rdi-relationship-development.html

whether it is good practice to combine the use of rewards or token economy systems with CPS. Dr Greene does not recommend this.



There are many reasons why parents, teachers or therapists are unwilling to give up on rewards but are willing to give CPS a try alongside existing practices such as PBIS. Also kids have grown so accustomed to get rewards for doing what they have been asked to do , that they don't take to the idea of giving up on the rewards.



The alternative to rewards is to make learning and pro-social behavior intrinsically valuable, an engaging curriculum which is stimulating and interesting, driven by student curiosity and interest , allowing students to generate choices , all this taking place in the context of a community of learning. Learning can also have an association with fun.



Rewards are a Plan A strategy, not collaborating with the kid. The kid has no skill deficit but the added motivation might get the job done. This may work well in the short-term , and sometimes even if there is a slight skill deficit , rewards can ' make a kid look good', but won't solve a problem durably.



If we decide to use rewards I recommend the following.



1 Bring the kids into the process and let them decide together with you how rewards are going to be used. When rewards are self determined , the kid will not see them as controlling but see the reward as some extrinsic motivation to help him towards a goal. A kid who has difficulty in practicing piano regularly can decide to use a sticker chart and then reward himself when he achieves his goal. This helps kids reflect on more real reasons for doing things or behaving in a caring way than just to get the reward. Some kids would prefer no rewards as it may cause them anxiety or stress. We need to try and see things from a kid's point of view- whether they want or don't want a reward. When they do want a reward, we can give it and over time help them reflect on the real reasons they would like to do things.



2 Don't punish or have the kid loose credits or points for inappropriate behavior . Deal with the problem using CPS , collaborative problem solving. Behaviorists have been moving away from punishments or loosing credits , points etc – ' honey catches more flies than vinegar '.



3 Real learning takes place when kids are feeling happy, engaged, related to the teacher and kids and this usually is after they have received the reward. The learning that takes place before the reward is given has a limited effect , because it is due to ' extortion ' and the kid is not expressing his ' autonomy' and is not connected to his inner core. The reward may give an activity or learning an association with joy and happiness. This sense of joy takes place only after the reward has been given. We have to capitalize on the kid's good feeling and sense of well being and give rewards as soon as possible. This recommendation is in sharp contrast with the usual approach which sees prizes as incentives and therefore, an attempt is made to ' squeeze out ' as much performance as possible out of students before giving prizes ( to get the most bang for the buck , so as to speak ). So rewards must be very , very , very easy to get , there should be plenty of them while learning takes place , so the reward is seen more as part of the fun , part of the activity , than an incentive. The rewards of course must non-salient , cheap , mainly expressions of attention , feedback etc.



In my community prayer house kids have the opportunity to lead the service in song. They now – my recommendation- get the candy before they perform, so the candy should contribute to their singing out of joy and not singing for the candy ( despite it being a non-salient reward).



4 Everybody agrees that giving rewards is not the optimal way to operate and that we should be promoting intrinsic motivation. We need to find ways and opportunities to give up on rewards and try to give learning an association of fun. We also need to find ways to make learning and behaving intrinsically rewarding.



We can have group goals. So the group will get the sticker and the number of stickers will reflect on how the group is doing in achieving its goals and the kid feels good about contributing to the group.


Kids can decide to donate their rewards to a good cause or children who are less fortunate than them.

Allan