A Defense of Behaviorism?

[Mia]

What? No symbols for “crashing thunder” and “scary organ music”? :scratch

I’m posting this in response to some of the recent discussions about Behaviorism and Punishment. It seems that many are struggling to adopt the maxim “Behaviorism BAD”, only to find the reality of their lives fraught with suggestion of it. I hope to offer an explanation of why this happening and to do it in a concise way. But at the same time, I don’t want to stop short of making the point, as I feel many of the mommies on this board might like the clarification.

I realize that this post (or at least its title) within THIS forum would be counted somewhat “controversial”, and especially if the idea of it has made your blood start to boil, I hope you will bear with me. :pray

My husband is completing a graduate degree in Behavioral Psychology. Yes, he is a "Behaviorist"... And it's less like being married to the "devil" than you might think. ;) We co-sleep, extended nurse, wear our DD, responded to every cry, wouldn't consider hitting or directly using punishment and our general protocol is to extend a LOT of freedom and grace.

I feel badly for DH because the science which he has invested the last 4 years of his life studying is so greatly and so frequently misrepresented. Probably because parenting is the most difficult and most important job we will ever have (and because we are burdened with SO much information to assimilate in our quests to do it "right") I think sometimes we hope to “write-off" particular ideas as "just plain wrong" so that we can lighten our load a little.

Each of the mothers reading this message (and their children) are under the influence of "behavioral principles” every day. (And we REALLY need a “smiley being pelted with tomatoes!”)

Positive Reinforcement: Have you ever looked over at your DC and smiled :)? What was DC doing? (Whether you were conscious of your response), there’s a very good chance that you just "reinforced" or "rewarded" that "share toy" behavior, that "gently petting kitty" behavior, that "Hi, Mommy" behavior that DC sent your way. Positive Reinforcement isn’t always as obvious as praise, gold stars or hard cash. :think

Punishment: Or perhaps, your toddler is throwing food again and you look at him with a “frown” :(. Spanking and shouting isn’t the ONLY way to punish a behavior. It can be as subtle as a “look”, a “sigh” or “withdrawing” from the room.

Should I dare say it? Even God utilizes Behavioral principles (or rather, God created the principles and scientists named them!) For example, "Ask and ye shall receive". The Lord promises that our "ask" behavior will be reinforced with the "receive" response. Or how about: "Give and it shall be given unto you". "Children obey your parents...(so that you may) do well and live long on the earth." (This is simple "positive reinforcement" and the Biblical list is endless).

We are engaged in these Behavioral exchanges all day long with every individual we are in contact with. (In other words, the question is not WHETHER we are utilizing the Principles of Behavior, it's WHICH ones, HOW and to what END?). In the same way that we have an option to deny the “law of gravity”, if we choose to pretend Behavioral law isn’t there, it’s still having an impact on our lives (and that of our children). :eek

The Definitions: If you have followed a particular action with a particular response, and that action starts to happen MORE frequently, you have utilized “Positive Reinforcement”. If instead, an action begins to occur LESS as a result of the response given, it has been “Punished.” (Keeping in mind that what the INDIVIDUAL finds “reinforcing” or “punishing” is influenced by temperament, personal history, paired associations, etc.)

Why Behaviorism is relevant to Gentle Discipline: It is to Behaviorism (or “Behavior Analysis” as it is known presently) that we owe the scientific (provable) data the world has available regarding the destructive nature of “Punishment” - the "avoidance", "counter punishment" and "fear response" that it leaves in its tracks. It is also because of Behaviorism that we have a thorough understanding of the tools to strengthen and shape the behaviors we want to see more of, while curbing things less desirable WITHOUT using punishing techniques. And in the specific work of children with Autism and related issues, there is no therapy more effective than the skilled application of these principles. :tu

Coming to my point: We can use the laws of physics to build buildings or destroy them. It’s not the laws THEMSELVES, but the applications of the laws which may come into moral or ethical question. In the same way, Behavioral law is not applied in the same way by ALL Behaviorists (nor parents, spouses, neighbors, florists, etc.). Nonetheless, we reserve the power to use them, and they will have an enormous impact on our developing children who are captive to our choices. Behavioral law is objective and provable. This being the case, should we not embrace an understanding of the “cause and effect” relationship of these to the greatest interest of each individual child? Equipping ourselves with as much information and skill as possible? Apostle Paul said, “Let us consider how we may encourage one another to good works.” Behavioral Psychology has produced some great ideas. :tu

Ezzo is no more a Behaviorist than Sears: (Blasphemy! Right?) :hunh Sears says (in behavioral terms): "Pick-up the baby when he cries, in this way you'll be rewarding his attempt to communicate and ensure baby will not withdrawal." On the shelf next to him, Ezzo might say: "If you want a cry-baby, be sure to always pick him up… you'll be reinforcing crying!" They're both (in a sense) “right”, but the final analyses are as different as night and day. And there’s the rub.

“Hard and fast rules” We’re always looking for them. But since our children come “tailor made”, even with behavioral principles in hand, they are hard to find. We (personally) lean on: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” ( Jesus said that THIS precept is the “fulfillment of the law and the prophets” – WOW. Good enough for me.) Then to use Behavioral principles responsibly, should we not simply do (or not do) unto our children the same as we would want done unto us (at THAT age, with THAT temperament)? (ie. Since I would never want to “be hit”, I won’t “hit” – and I’ve just eliminated using that type of “Punishment”. On the other hand, I might like a “hug” at the end of performing a challenging task, so this type of P.R., I’ll utilize on my child. However, unless its “important”, I’d rather not be bothered with it, so then I extend a lot of freedom and so on.)

Free Will? It’s not mutually incompatible with the concept of Behavioral principles. “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve”. The choice is ours. But using behavioral language, God could have also said: “Choose ye this day whether ye find serving God or satisfying the passing pleasures of sin more Reinforcing.”

So why the bad rap? John Watson (one of the first behaviorists who lived early in the 20th century) advised such things as the witholding affection from children as a strategy to give them more incentive to obey (a simple "supply and demand" tool). It was suggestions like this and resonating ideas from other thinkers coming out of the Victorian era that spawned "spoiling theory", leaving generations suffering in its wake. (And the developing science of Behavioral Psychology was “guilty by association”.) :td

Another “bone to pick”: Behaviorism is so seemingly "reductionistic" in perspective. An earlier post described it as being solely focused on "outward results" (or those things about a person which can be “seen”). After all, we on this board understand that people are more than just “bodies doing behaviors” (we are “souls” and “spirits”, as well) . And being of this mind, Behaviorism can appear "superficial" and “cold” in its approach to dealing with people. Here’s WHY it’s that way:

Before Behaviorists came along, the field of Psychology was "Freud", the "unconscious" and such. These were interesting ideas to contemplate on a long walk or discuss over dinner - the "inner-world" of the human being, possible correlations between life-events and neuroses :think - but in NO WAY were these ideas "science". One could never speak about such things with any certainty - the way we can say : “Water freezes at 32-degrees F” because science has proven this fact time and time again. Unlike, say, Physics or Chemistry, ideas regarding Psychology were not proven by the Scientific Method and repeatable experimentation.

The inspiration for Behaviorism was to bring Psychology into the realm of science. In order to do this, scientists were forced to limit themselves to utilizing only EMPIRICAL data (that which can be observed) or "behaviors". Hence, the name. We cannot see a person’s thoughts. We cannot see a person’s emotions. :shrug What we CAN see is a person’s behaviors. It has been this examining of behaviors in scientific, experimental design that has taught us a great deal over the last 100 years.

Something else that’s bothering us: When we think “Behaviorism,” often dark and sinister images are stirred in our minds – ones of experimentation on humans and animals - and for good reason. Early in the history of Behaviorism scientists DID test the effects of punishment on both humans and animals (the consenting, the non-consenting). Awful as this might be, it is that period of research that has given the world what it knows in all certainty of the destructive nature of Punishment. (In other words, in a society where “Punishment” was standard fare (and presumably supported by God), it took “causing the harm” to figure-out it was “harmful”.)

Something to consider: Early surgery employed such things as “trephination” (tapping holes into the skull to “let the demons out” and later, “blood letting” (to get rid of the sick person’s “bad” blood). We wouldn’t condemn modern day surgery for its early failures. In the same way, it wouldn’t make sense to shun Behaviorism for its false starts. At this point in history, Behavior Analysis is the ONLY discipline of Psychology that NEVER advises the use of Punishment. :highfive

Behaviorism does not deny God, the existence of mind, consciousness, genetic predispositions, instinct, or other concepts such as these. They are simply not the SUBJECT of Behavior Analysis. Instead, it focuses on observable, quantifiable events. They don’t necessarily deny the existence of a mind or “mind theories”, they just simply don’t talk about them because they can’t be put through rigorous, experimental design.

“Unconditional Parenting” is the latest book by Alfie Kohn. It is one of the many books that attempt to demonize Behavioral Psychology because of fearful misconceptions and a failure to receive even an elementary education on the subject (You reading here now understand more about Behaviorism than this author does :doh). That said, the message he is trying to articulate makes a strong point, which is: “Many of the types of Positive Reinforcement that we use on our children can be unhelpful, condescending, serving the parent’s needs for convenience, success and so on.” How true this may be! But the first half of his book was filled with grand, sweeping statements condemning Behaviorism, only towards the end to suggest to the reader doing such things, instead, as acknowledging or “giving attention” to a child’s good work (“attention” being one of the most powerful “Reinforcements” of all.)

We on this board are riding the wave of “gentle,” “graceful,” “positive discipline.” If you are like me, you desperately hope the "wave" will develop into a “storm” and change the course of parenting forever. Though not our ONLY tool, the respectful use of behavioral principles as well as laying down our preconceived hostilities towards Behaviorism will ultimately help us get there. Sears’ endorsement on the back of “Biblical Parenting” reminds us that it’s all about the “relationship” we have with our children. The more “reinforcing” elements within that relationship (and the fewer that create “fear” and “avoidance”) the better that relationship will be. :hug

[MarynMunchkins]

Thanks. :hug

Dealing with a mood disorder has made me grateful for pyschology and psychiatristry and how far it has come. Some of those behaviorist techniques make the difference in having a day where Doug threatens to stab people, and a day where we can all enjoy each other. :)

[Chris3jam]

It was suggestions like this and resonating ideas from other thinkers coming out of the Victorian era that spawned "spoiling theory", leaving generations suffering in its wake.

I think everybody on this board just reacts to the negative effects of extreme behaviour modification.

John Holt also has some good insights. He also points out that the inward satifisfaction of doing a job well has its own reward. I mean, don't we feel good when we do something nice for someone, whether anyone notices or not? That kind of thing can be reinforced by the outward positive reactions we get, also. Think of the children/people that become great successes, even through great tribulation or physical disability. (Dave Pelzer comes to mind) There is still something on the inside that helps to drive one either to 'good' or 'bad'.

Like you outline in your post, it is the extreme use of it which can cause problems.

I grew up, I believe, within that extreme. I had a military father, a controlling German/socialist mother, and I went to public school (live for the grade). I literally feel paralyzed if I have to actually make a decision. Choosing what is for dinner is bad enough -- having to choose whether or not to make a phone call to enroll my children in soccer is a Herculean task (they've been waiting for 2 years :(). I have a prescription from a neurologist to get physical therapy and to change my diet. That was a month ago. But, there is nobody here to 'make' me do it --- so I haven't. Makes homeschooling, yea, raising, my children a constant struggle. See, no authority told me to do it, so it very well could be very wrong. I walk a very fine tightrope every single day.

And I think *that* is more what we are reacting to, not the 'norm'. Of course, anyone feel free to correct me - I could very well be wrong.

btw -- I've no problem with your post - I've actually printed it out. I'm not arguing with you. :D

Oh, and I agree with Mary -- behaviour modification techniques was the only way we survived living with my now 22 yo. I wish I had been better at it!

[sadie]

I am confused by some aspects of your post. You claim that Kohn rants against behaviorism in his book, 'Unconditional Parenting.' Incidentally, I just finished rereading this book today. I do not know exactly where this rant occurs. Can you give me the page numbers you are referring to? Or perhaps you have not actually read the book? Perhaps you are referring to 'Punished by Rewards,' where, in the beginning, he goes into great detail about why he believes behaviorism is wrongly and harmfully applied as a parenting philosophy, citing scores of studies and clinic research to back up his views? I'm not trying to be snarky, but it I am troubled by the unqualified negative review of Kohn and his work that you are providing, when you are claiming that others are doing the same thing by condemning behaviorism. :shrug And, BTW, Kohn is actually quite well versed in the clinical background of behaviorism. A more thorough review of his work would seem to be in order here.

Positive Reinforcement: Have you ever looked over at your DC and smiled ? What was DC doing? (Whether you were conscious of your response), there’s a very good chance that you just "reinforced" or "rewarded" that "share toy" behavior, that "gently petting kitty" behavior, that "Hi, Mommy" behavior that DC sent your way. Positive Reinforcement isn’t always as obvious as praise, gold stars or hard cash.

I absolutely agree with you. Positive reinforcement can be an inocuous term designed to describe naturally occuring, specific facets of human interaction. However, behaviorism, insofar as it is an applied science, has taken this naturally occuring phenomenon and discovered methods to intentionally use it to manipulate behavior--hence, praise, gold stars or hard cash. Some parents are uncomfortable with this. :shrug It does not do to simply point out to them that it is a natural part of life. Hurting yourself when you fall while doing something you knew was wrong (and thereafter never doing it again) is a natural part of life...but that is not justification for intentionally inflicting pain to prevent unwanted behavior.

Coming to my point: We can use the laws of physics to build buildings or destroy them. It’s not the laws THEMSELVES, but the applications of the laws which may come into moral or ethical question. In the same way, Behavioral law is not applied in the same way by ALL Behaviorists (nor parents, spouses, neighbors, florists, etc.). Nonetheless, we reserve the power to use them, and they will have an enormous impact on our developing children who are captive to our choices. Behavioral law is objective and provable. This being the case, should we not embrace an understanding of the “cause and effect” relationship of these to the greatest interest of each individual child? Equipping ourselves with as much information and skill as possible? Apostle Paul said, “Let us consider how we may encourage one another to good works.” Behavioral Psychology has produced some great ideas.

I agree. However...

The inspiration for Behaviorism was to bring Psychology into the realm of science. In order to do this, scientists were forced to limit themselves to utilizing only EMPIRICAL data (that which can be observed) or "behaviors". Hence, the name. We cannot see a person’s thoughts. We cannot see a person’s emotions. What we CAN see is a person’s behaviors. It has been this examining of behaviors in scientific, experimental design that has taught us a great deal over the last 100 years.

It is quite obvious that Behaviorism, from your own words being an empirical science, cannot take into account such unquantifiable intangibles as emotions, though processes, the abstract idea of conscience, or reasons and motivations that exist in the mind of the individual, but are not expressed by their outward, 'measurable' behavior. Behaviorism may be a helpful way of clinically studying human behavior, but it quite obviously falls short as a parenting philosophy. Unless one is comfortable embracing a parenting philosophy that does not concern itself with the child's emotions and thoughts. :shrug

Kohn's issue with Behaviorism is not with the fact that it is a branch of empirical science that searches for and attempts to define 'laws' of human interaction and behavior....it is the fact that Behaviorism and Behavioristic principles have become a parenting philosophy in and of itself...otherwise known as 'Pop Behaviorism.' That is what he is crusading against. No one, least of all Kohn, is arguing that Behaviorism is not a valid branch of science...but rather that it needs to stay in the realm of empirical science, and not try to present itself as a parenting philosophy.

Again, I am not trying to be snarky. :O ITA that Behaviorism is a relevant scientific field, and the principles it discovered can be very useful for many people. But your specific words regarding Alfie Kohn's research are simply inaccurate, and I could not allow that to pass without addressing it. :shrug Also, I have to point out that while some behavioristic methods appeal to some parents, they do not appeal to others, including myself, who find them unsavory. This does not mean I think clinical Behaviorism is totally useless, or that I irrationally rant against it...this means I do not believe in purposefully manipulating the laws it has discovered to alter my child's behavior. If a smile from me is positively reinforcing, unbeknownst to me, that's obviously fine! :lol But I am personally uncomfortable with intentionally using this 'law' to my own ends (for example, purposefully smiling at behavior specifically b/c I wish to reinforce it). :shrug

And BTW, I dislike Dr. Sears' terminology often times as well. ;) If I choose to AP my child, it's b/c I believe it is the right thing to do. Perhaps I feel this way b/c of years of positive reinforcement conditioning me to hold those views. Recognition of that fact is very different from saying that I purposefully chose to AP b/c I wish to manipulate the laws of postive reinforcement in order to promote specific desired behaviors in my child. (Example: I choose to love "x" amount and nurture "y" amount to produce "z" behavior in my child.) I recognize the principles of Behaviorism in my day to day life...I do not purposefully and intentionally apply Behavioristic laws as a parenting philosophy.

Behaviorism is a fine and worthwhile empirical science that gives us a great deal of insight into specific and limited examples of human interaction and motivation...it is not, and should never be, a parenting philosophy in and of itself. :shrug

[ArmsOfLove]

Kohn's issue with Behaviorism is not with the fact that it is a branch of empirical science that searches for and attempts to define 'laws' of human interaction and behavior....it is the fact that Behaviorism and Behavioristic principles have become a parenting philosophy in and of itself...otherwise known as 'Pop Behaviorism.' That is what he is crusading against. No one, least of all Kohn, is arguing that Behaviorism is not a valid branch of science...but rather that it needs to stay in the realm of empirical science, and not try to present itself as a parenting philosophy. This pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Sure, much of behaviorism is valid. I disagree with the idea (not sure if it's still held or not) of people being a blank slate and being the product of what we put into them and train them to be and do. Certainly all of the attempts to parent with gender neutrality are showing us that people come into the world with their own being already breathed into them. Discipleship is not "behavior modification" to change the person; it's about changing the person and then the behavior changes as a result.

I don't disagree with most of what you said--I don't have a problem with "Behaviorism". I am bothered by much of what has been done in the realm of parenting in the name of behaviorism :( More than that, I'm bothered by the current trend in the Christian community to do the same old thing done by behaviorists of yesterday (and rejected by them today according to your post :tu) and call it "Biblical" instead of what it is (while railing against behaviorism :rolleyes)

Thanks for typing that all out and I hope you better understand where I'm coming from :) :hug

[Joanne]

This thread makes me uncomfortable. I feel like I hardly know you and I didn't like the assumptions about us that seemed to be implicit in your post.

Not to mention I'm all about practicality and application. I've had enough theory and enough authors or theorists who claim to know, across the board, what's best for me and mine.

[sadie]

ITA with Joanne's discomfort. :(

But I thought some more and wanted to add.

Let me use a practical analogy. Let's look at the law of gravity. If I drop an apple and accidentally bruise it, I can say, "Oh, how interesting. Gravity made the apple fall to the ground." OTOH, I can decide to purposefully bruise the apple by manipulating the law of gravity to direct the apple towards the ground.

Now, obviously there are no moral implications in using the law of gravity this way (although the fruit might disagree :lol ). But there is something morally objectionable, IMO, in doing this with the laws of Behaviorism. You see, discipleship is about addressing the heart--guiding it and instilling morals, ethics, compassion, responsibility, reason, conscience, etc. According to the principles of discipleship, as the heart grows and learns these values, the outward behavior naturally changes to reflect the change within.

But Behaviorism, as an applied parenting philosophy, does not address the heart. It shortchanges the process by manipulating Behavioral laws to produce the desired behavior. The heart, the intangible values within, are irrelevant to the science of Behaviorism, according to your own words.

Discipleship is about guiding the heart and encouraging moral/spiritual growth, with behavioral change naturally following. Applied Behaviorism is about guiding the behavior to guide the...behavior. :( I personally find that form of parenting unappealing and ethically empty. :shrug

[expatmom]

Thanks to the OP for posting. Its obvious that you are thinking things through & trying to mesh your thoughts together. I appreciate your thoughts.

[OpalsMom]

It is quite obvious that Behaviorism, from your own words being an empirical science, cannot take into account such unquantifiable intangibles as emotions, though processes, the abstract idea of conscience, or reasons and motivations that exist in the mind of the individual, but are not expressed by their outward, 'measurable' behavior. Behaviorism may be a helpful way of clinically studying human behavior, but it quite obviously falls short as a parenting philosophy. Unless one is comfortable embracing a parenting philosophy that does not concern itself with the child's emotions and thoughts. :shrug


I'm not sure who was espousing behaviorism as a parenting philosophy, to start with. Like the original poster, I feel frustrated with people's tendency to criticize "behaviorism" when they're talking about something I don't recognize. And when they routinely suggest methods identical to those any modern behaviorist would suggest. Right down to "the most effective way to get rid of an undesired behavior is to remove its motivation".

That aside, psychologists routinely take emotions, thoughts, conscience, reasons and motivations into account. It's difficult, sure, but it's impossible to study human beings otherwise. Many of the most interesting results I've heard lately are about the effects of emotions. It's empirically provable that people who feel better, do better (are more likely to follow rules and help strangers, even when it's inconvenient). Isn't that a nice fact to have handy?

Crystal also talked about not believing that children are blank slates. Neither does the mainstream of psychology. That's not a basic tenet of behaviorism. It hasn't been for at least 20 years.

The Ezzos are no better as behaviorists than as christians, and it is no more reasonable to demonize behaviorism because of their slanted take on it than it is to demonize christianity. Any modern behaviorist will tell you that their methods are not only inappropriate for humans, they're inappropriate, full stop. It's not even a sensible, productive method of training mules.

[sadie]

I'm not sure who was espousing behaviorism as a parenting philosophy, to start with

Are you seriously claiming that no parenting 'expert' out there is trying to peddle Behaviorism as a parenting philosophy? ITA that many Behaviorists themselves are doing no such thing, and I am sorry for the bad rap that empirical Behavioral scientists are getting for it. :(

Who's demonizing Behaviorism? No one in this thread has done so...some of us just spoke out against it being used as a parenting philosophy, and I, personally, spoke up about inaccuracies regarding the work of Alfie Kohn, as well as my personal distaste for applied behaviorism. :shrug I don't see where anyone is demonizing the science of Behaviorism.

[ArmsOfLove]

Crystal also talked about not believing that children are blank slates. Neither does the mainstream of psychology. That's not a basic tenet of behaviorism. It hasn't been for at least 20 years.Thank you for clarifying this :) I don't keep up on behaviorism. In my book I talk about the beginnings of what is the current detachment/punitive parenting methods coming primarily *from* early behaviorists, but I don't keep up on modern teachings as I'm not a scientist :) I know that what I read for dog training, which would probably be more from modern behaviorism, is very gentle and PD. Though there is manipulation involved that I'm not comfortable with applying to children--I understand in as much as the author explained how dogs think that it would be appropriate :)

[OpalsMom]

I'm not sure who was espousing behaviorism as a parenting philosophy, to start with

Are you seriously claiming that no parenting 'expert' out there is trying to peddle Behaviorism as a parenting philosophy? ITA that many Behaviorists themselves are doing no such thing, and I am sorry for the bad rap that empirical Behavioral scientists are getting for it. :(


No, but I am claiming that nobody HERE is espousing it as a parenting philosophy, so saying that it's a bad parenting philosophy isn't relevant to the original poster's topic. Her point is that behaviorism isn't a parenting philosophy, at all. It is simply a science which helps to provide tools you can use to implement whatever parenting philosophy you choose. Concrete is not an architectural theory, even though there are architects who have based architectural theories on it. That is not the fault of the concrete.

Behaviorists do not think that theories of mind are unimportant, any more than they think that the fate of the planet is unimportant. They simply do not think of them as part of their area of research. A behaviorist can't talk to you professionally about theories of mind for the same reason that a podiatrist can't; it's just not related. Not unimportant, not invalid, not uninteresting or non-existent -- just not what they do for a living. Because behaviorism is a research program, an academic discipline, like physics. And like physics, although it may inspire deep philosophical thoughts, it is not a philosophy. Of parenting or anything else.

As a side note, I think that most of the parenting writers out there who claim to be trying to peddle behaviorism are peddling nonsense with a behaviorist label on it. Saying it's bad because it's behaviorism is poor rhetoric. It's bad because it's twaddle. The mask it's hiding behind isn't relevant. Learning more about behaviorism helps to unmask its stupidity the same way that learning more about Christianity helps to unmask the stupidity of their religious claims.

When I say that people demonize behaviorism, I mean that they do say that bad ideas, often ones which are not behaviorism, are bad because they are behaviorism. Like the woman whose therapist told her to just tell her children to clean up, over and over again. That's related to behaviorism the same way that some of the "consequences" ideas one hears are related to gentle discipline -- you can tell they heard something about the concept, but they didn't get the important bit. From a behaviorist point of view, if she succeeded in doing that, she'd be training the kids not to listen to her. What's the point in that? The classical advice here to wade in and help is much better from a behaviorist point of view. In that case, you're training the kids that when you say things are going to get picked up, they're going to get picked up. So the therapist's advice was bad, but not because it was behaviorist. One of the many ways in which it was bad (and there are lots!) was that it was not behaviorist enough. It was trying to violate some very fundamental behaviorist principles which you can only get around in very special circumstances, because they are very close to being genuine cause-and-effect laws like gravity.

[ArmsOfLove]

As a side note, I think that most of the parenting writers out there who claim to be trying to peddle behaviorism are peddling nonsense with a behaviorist label on it. Saying it's bad because it's behaviorism is poor rhetoric. It's bad because it's twaddle. The mask it's hiding behind isn't relevant. Learning more about behaviorism helps to unmask its stupidity the same way that learning more about Christianity helps to unmask the stupidity of their religious claims.Actually--this may be where there is confusion in this topic/this thread. . . . I know of no parenting authors who *claim* to be teaching behaviorism. Rather, authors like Ezzo and Pearl condemn behaviorism--but they base their *styles* on (apparently old and outdated) behaviorism ideas.

does that make more sense?

[sadie]

No, but I am claiming that nobody HERE is espousing it as a parenting philosophy, so saying that it's a bad parenting philosophy isn't relevant to the original poster's topic

The OP seems to feel that many moms on this board are expending precious energy trying desperately to convince themselves that scientific Behaviorism is wrong. She also seems to feel that defending scientific Behaviorism will make our 'blood boil.' She directly refers to other threads where Behaviorism has been discussed. In these other threads, moms have expressed a concern with Behavioristic principles, and Pop Behaviorism has been roundly denounced as destructive, while many have pointed out that Applied Behaviorism falls short as a parenting philosophy for various reasons.

I brought up Behaviorism and it's connection to parenting philosophy to address the OP's comments. I am sorry you do not see the relevance of that.

Again, I want to repeat that no one on this board, as far as I am aware, is demonizing the science of Behaviorism. I have attempted throughout my posts to demonstrate that to the OP, as well as address what I feel are inaccuracies in her post. She went into great detail in explaining why there is nothing wrong with scientific Behaviorism, when no one actually said or expressed that there was anything objectionable about it. In fact, the only thing negative anyone has stated regarding behaviorism is the harm of Pop Behaviorism and the questionable use of applied Behaviorism as a parenting philosophy. No one has tried to villify scientific behaviorism, or claim that it is completely useless or invalid, or has absolutely no practical relevance in helping treat specific issues (like Mary's situation :hug ).

I have to say, I am confused, Opalsmom. I don't see what is being argued here. :shrug It seems that we are saying the same thing.

[DogwoodMama]

The OP seems to feel that many moms on this board are expending precious energy trying desperately to convince themselves that scientific Behaviorism is wrong. She also seems to feel that defending scientific Behaviorism will make our 'blood boil.' She directly refers to other threads where Behaviorism has been discussed. In these other threads, moms have expressed a concern with Behavioristic principles, and Pop Behaviorism has been roundly denounced as destructive, while many have pointed out that Applied Behaviorism falls short as a parenting philosophy for various reasons.

I brought up Behaviorism and it's connection to parenting philosophy to address the OP's comments. I am sorry you do not see the relevance of that.

Again, I want to repeat that no one on this board, as far as I am aware, is demonizing the science of Behaviorism. I have attempted throughout my posts to demonstrate that to the OP, as well as address what I feel are inaccuracies in her post. She went into great detail in explaining why there is nothing wrong with scientific Behaviorism, when no one actually said or expressed that there was anything objectionable about it. In fact, the only thing negative anyone has stated regarding behaviorism is the harm of Pop Behaviorism and the questionable use of applied Behaviorism as a parenting philosophy. No one has tried to villify scientific behaviorism, or claim that it is completely useless or invalid, or has absolutely no practical relevance in helping treat specific issues (like Mary's situation :hug ).

I have to say, I am confused, Opalsmom. I don't see what is being argued here. :shrug It seems that we are saying the same thing.


I totally agree with this... I don't think Behaviorism per say is under attack (though I have read attacks on Psychology in general by the kinds of folks who promote "pop behavioral" approaches to parenting), but just behaviorism applied in domains where it probably should not be. And I agree ABA is a great treatment approach for autism spectrum disorders and similar. OK, I'm just repeating the others here. :O

[cklewis]

Mia,

I have a little bit different thing to say.

Like your husband, I have a graduate degree in an often-maligned and misunderstood field (a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Indiana U, Bloomington). We in my discipline expend a lot of energy justifying our existence because since Plato our object of study has been classified as "mere." :( :mad I've heard folklorists say that same thing. :shrug So a lot of uninitiated :giggle at our fields and say, "that's just rhetoric/folklore/behaviorism!" :rolleyes

Funny thing -- we have constructed similar justifying arguments as your DH -- broadening the definition of rhetoric/folklore/behaviorism to include so much it's almost too much, raising the signifance of rhetoric/folklore/behaviorism above all other disciplines, and making rhetoric/folklore/behaviorism ubiquitous.

I guess I'm saying all that to say that it sometimes is frustrating when your academic field is maligned, and when it is, we often act the same way. Educating others, like you have done so well, is important. But with the caveats that rhetoric/folklore/behaviorism is not ubiquitous. When we do that, we almost make it too broad to be useful.

Peace,

C

[UltraMother]

What Joanne said.

But I can understand wanting to defend your dh's line of study. :)

[Katherine]

Interesting discussion, and I must admit I'm not nearly as well read on this as some other posters here obviously are... :O

My thought is this:

I, personally, am... leery--careful... about using behavoristic principles (even the "positive reinforcement" type) in relationships b/c I am trying to grow away from the feeling and teaching that I have a right and responsibility to control the behavior of and expect certain feelings from other people. I am trying to shift my focus *away* from that, and consciously using things like beh. mod. techniques or depending heavily on logical consequences--while not always a problem in and of itself--has a tendecy to derail the direction in which I'm trying to grow--it really resurrects the old approaches that I'm trying to let go of. Is it possible that this is part of the dynamic you've picked up on which gave you the anti-behavorism impression?

It's like the difference between trying to set a boundary ON another person versus setting a boundary AROUND your own person or a particular object. It's a very subtle, but significant difference in mindset... one emphasizes managing/controlling/manipulating another person, and the other deals focuses on managing/controlling/protecting yourself.

Not sure if that makes any sense... :shrug :shifty

[heartofjoy]

I'm the woman whose therapist told her to tell dd to clean her room up over and over. I thought that was ludicris when she said it, but I did not think that particular piece of advice was Behaviorism.

I have a psychology degree and I have no problem with the field of modern Behaviorism. I had a problem with the therapist continually suggesting ways to control my dd's behavior. Especially since I wanted ways to control my own anger. If she had suggested Behavioristic principles for THAT, I would have been pleased. It's not Behviorism I have a problem with, it's the application of it as a parenting method.

I am trying to grow away from the feeling and teaching that I have a right and responsibility to control the behavior of and expect certain feelings from other people. I am trying to shift my focus *away* from that, and conciously using things like beh. mod. techniques or depending heavily on logical consequences--while not always a problem in and of itself--have a tendecy to derail the direction in which I'm trying to grow--it really resurrects the old approaches that I'm trying to let go of.

ITA! I do not want to think about the ways I am reinforcing/punishing specific behaviors. I want to learn how to show unconditional love, grace, and mercy to my child. I want to learn how to control my own emotions to the extent that even if my child never behaves, I will be in control of my own self. I was frustrated with the therapist's lack of focus on how to change MY behavior. If you dh knows any good behavior mod tips for controlling anger, I'm all ears!

[Chris3jam]

If you dh knows any good behavior mod tips for controlling anger, I'm all ears!

ME, TOO! :popcorn

(I almost wrote a whole post about that very thing -- having problems with controlling myself and reacting to other people -- might just do it anyway!)

[UltraMother]

a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Indiana U, Bloomington

Camille, you just keep getting more and more interesting! :lol

[Mia]

Dear mommies, thanks for talking about this… for the :tu, :td and :neutral! GCM is such a great forum… I’m a member of another similar board (AP) and half the time you “log on” only to hear chirping crickets :yawn … what a wonderful change this. :)

To BananaBugTaterTot:
Your quote: Some of those behaviorist techniques make the difference in having a day where Doug threatens to stab people, and a day where we can all enjoy each other.

It seems the way Behavioral Principles “come into play” is often more obvious when difficulties are exaggerated by certain situations – like chemical imbalances or strong temperaments. So glad to hear therapy is helping! :-) (I hope more parents will consider the resource.)

To chris3jam:
Your quote: I grew up, I believe, within that extreme. I had a military father, a controlling German/socialist mother, and I went to public school (live for the grade). I literally feel paralyzed if I have to actually make a decision. Choosing what is for dinner is bad enough -- having to choose whether or not to make a phone call to enroll my children in soccer is a Herculean task (they've been waiting for 2 years ). I have a prescription from a neurologist to get physical therapy and to change my diet. That was a month ago. But, there is nobody here to 'make' me do it --- so I haven't. Makes homeschooling, yea, raising, my children a constant struggle. See, no authority told me to do it, so it very well could be very wrong. I walk a very fine tightrope every single day.

I also was raised by authoritarian parents (in the name of the Lord) and though they were by no means the “extreme,” I can associate with your difficulty in making decisions. :hug2 There’s nothing like a history of punishment (eennk… “wrong answer”… trap door, please) to leave us anxious about taking the “next step”. What if you regret signing-up for soccer? Or dinner is a “flop” and the family has been “let down”? My own indecisiveness emerges with things I feel like I just MIGHT be able to get “perfect”… like “what color to paint the walls” or refusing to buy something I need until I find the “most comfortable, most practical – yet, still attractive pair of sandals!” :rolleyes (not to mention at the “best price”.) It can be obsessive. I think its interesting “physical therapy” has been recommended to you. Does it help to counter-act the anxiety?

To Sadie:
I’m not sure, but I think this may be a thread where we “agree to disagree”. When I was going back through to address the concerns of your posts, I was retyping much of my original post.

Your quote: Can you give me the page numbers you are referring to? Or perhaps you have not actually read the book? Perhaps you are referring to 'Punished by Rewards,' where, in the beginning, he goes into great detail about why he believes behaviorism is wrongly and harmfully applied as a parenting philosophy, citing scores of studies and clinic research to back up his views? I'm not trying to be snarky, but it I am troubled by the unqualified negative review of Kohn and his work that you are providing, when you are claiming that others are doing the same thing by condemning behaviorism. And, BTW, Kohn is actually quite well versed in the clinical background of behaviorism. A more thorough review of his work would seem to be in order here.

If you are looking for specific, behavioral terms, check pages: 13,14,15,17,26,27,34,35,38,42 (I limited myself to the first quarter of the book) but it’s the premise itself that was the issue.

Not to worry about “snarkiness.” I often get “snarky” when I am defending something I feel passionately about! (DH can attest to this!) :hug

This might help… it is an excerpt from the textbook for DH’s class on “Behavioral Management”. (Oddly) It was this week’s reading assignment.

From “Performance Management” by Daniels, Aubrey & James, pages 9-10.
“Some writers, such as Alfie Kohn (1993), have stated that positive reinforcement and rewards limit creativity and intrinsic interest in tasks. We will not dispute the fact that positive reinforcement and rewards can, and often are, used poorly. A fundamental rule you can count on is as follows: “If you positively reinforce the wrong behavior, you will get more of it.” Used correctly, however, reinforcement can increase creativity and intrinsic interest in a task (see, Neuringer, 2002, and Shahan & Chase, 2002). In a review of 25 years of research, Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) found that the detrimental effects of rewards claimed by Kohn are unfounded. Rather than rewards decreasing intrinsic interest in a task, their data from 125 research studies show that rewards actually increased interest and enjoyment of tasks, even after the rewards were withdrawn.”

It may come as a surprise, but I ALSO was excited about one of Kohn’s points which was (in other words) “Pos. Re. is often used by parents in inappropriate ways.” But I included this excerpt to demonstrate that referring to Kohn as “well versed in the clinical background of Behaviorism” or looking to him for definitive insight on the subject isn't, itself, appropriate.

To Crystal:
Your quote: Discipleship is not "behavior modification" to change the person; it's about changing the person and then the behavior changes as a result.

And the “heart” of my argument is that in the same sense that we cannot know what a person feels or thinks without outward expression (or behavior) of that “emotion” or “thought”, it is ultimately through a medium of “behaviors” (both ours and theirs - and the ensuing “applied principles”) that we accomplish this goal. Thanks for supporting the space to discuss these things (and for your book). :tu

To Joanne:

Your quote: I feel like I hardly know you and I didn't like the assumptions about us that seemed to be implicit in your post.

I’m sorry if I was "out of line". My experience with the GBP community has been that feelings are strong regarding the topic. But you’re right. There’s no way that a single attitude could reflect each mommy participating in this board. (I’m also regretting the “theatrics” I used in the beginning of the OP – you can’t always count on smilies to communicate the intended tone, humor, etc.) :O

To Expatmom:


Its obvious that you are thinking things through & trying to mesh your thoughts together. I appreciate your thoughts.


I am! Thanks for the validation. :-)

To OpalsMom:


...I am claiming that nobody HERE is espousing it as a parenting philosophy, so saying that it's a bad parenting philosophy isn't relevant to the original poster's topic. Her point is that behaviorism isn't a parenting philosophy, at all. It is simply a science which helps to provide tools you can use to implement whatever parenting philosophy you choose.


You have said in a few words what it took me 20 paragraphs to "get out"! TFTP! :-)

To BetsyPage:


I don't think Behaviorism per say is under attack (though I have read attacks on Psychology in general by the kinds of folks who promote "pop behavioral" approaches to parenting), but just behaviorism applied in domains where it probably should not be.


I mentioned to Joanne that MY experience has been that the GBP (and general AP) communities have strong feelings about Behaviorism. But it was previous posts on this board that prompted my OP. :shrug

To CKLewis:


I guess I'm saying all that to say that it sometimes is frustrating when your academic field is maligned, and when it is, we often act the same way. Educating others, like you have done so well, is important. But with the caveats that rhetoric/folklore/behaviorism is not ubiquitous. When we do that, we almost make it too broad to be useful.


Thank you for adding your point. (Ugh! Sorry to bring these types of debates, once again, into your life! :banghead) I agree with you that Behaviorism is not a panacea for everything… :rockon but I suppose what I am saying is in discussion about "behavior", behavioral principles actually are ubiquitous (ie, Pos. Re. isn’t theory, but fact).

To 2trees:


But I can understand wanting to defend your dh's line of study. :)


You know, I DO feel badly that he is constantly in “explanation mode,” but my motivation, here, was to get a discussion going about something that, I believe, is not incompatible with “gentle discipline”. Since Behavioral Principles simply “are,” it’s worth being aware of how they might be working in our homes. Perhaps, my resolve arises from the fact that, for me, it took seeing the research on punishment to rethink (and eventually “shake loose”) the idea that scripture is telling us to “spank”. Where research and scripture comes together can make a powerful point.

To palil:


It's like the difference between trying to set a boundary ON another person versus setting a boundary AROUND your own person or a particular object. It's a very subtle, but significant difference in mindset... one emphasizes managing/controlling/manipulating another person, and the other deals focuses on managing/controlling/protecting yourself.

Not sure if that makes any sense... :shrug :shifty


It totally does… I know what you’re saying. It’s an interesting point that I’m going to be thinking a lot about. :think Right now, I’m studying Jesus’ life, identifying Behavioral Principles in his approach to those HE was disciplining (his disciples). Your statement really seems in keeping with the spirit of Jesus – the ultimate example of “self-management, self-control, self-protection” (that last term - in the sense that He knew when to “remain”, but also when to “escape” from temptation, the crowds, etc.) In terms of His discipline, He utilized some of the most powerful types of Pos. Re. (attention, acknowledgement), but at the same time, it’s been my impression that His yoke, indeed, was "easy" and His burden, "light." :rockon

To heartofjoy:


I want to learn how to control my own emotions to the extent that even if my child never behaves, I will be in control of my own self. I was frustrated with the therapist's lack of focus on how to change MY behavior. If you dh knows any good behavior mod tips for controlling anger, I'm all ears!


I will ask DH if he can think of any resources for you… hope you are able to find what you are needing. Thanks for the feedback! :hug

[sadie]

Mia, I looked over all the pages that you mentioned. I still fail to find the 'grand, sweeping' negative generalizations about Behaviorism that you refer to. :shrug In fact, I find that the book is surprisingly silent on the subject of Behaviorism...from reading 'PbR' I had actually expected him to have much more to say on the subject as it pertains to parenting. You say he refers to specific behavioral terms...that is quite different from ranting against Behaviorism. :/ I suppose we will indeed have to agree to disagree. :) Secondly, I do not claim that Kohn is the end all be all authority on Behaviorism...however, he is quite well versed in the background and views of Behaviorism, both early and modern. Again, I urge a more thorough review of his work.

When I read 'PbR' I made it a point to actually read the aetiology of the research he footnoted. I do not simply believe, on faith, that 'such and such' research proved 'such and such' outcome to be true or untrue, just b/c a particular author claims it to be. As a scientist, I am sure your dh is quite familiar with the fact that studies can be quoted to support any viewpoint..very few people actually 'study the studies.' I do. I have looked up this research:

In a review of 25 years of research, Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) found that the detrimental effects of rewards claimed by Kohn are unfounded. Rather than rewards decreasing intrinsic interest in a task, their data from 125 research studies show that rewards actually increased interest and enjoyment of tasks, even after the rewards were withdrawn.”

...and in my informed opinion, Eisenberger and Cameron proved no such thing. :shrug

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. :shrug I appreciate your graceful response, and I very much enjoyed this discussion. :hug

[Chris3jam]

I think its interesting “physical therapy” has been recommended to you. Does it help to counter-act the anxiety?

Oops! Sorry! The physical therapy and diet is for my MS. You would think that having these problems would make me RUN toward making these decisions!

[raisa]

I am also particularly interested in this subject because of my background (law with a substantial economics influence). I don't often think about behaviorism in terms of psychology, so I appreciate the context given here! My concern about behaviorism and parenting is broader than this, because I think behaviorist attitudes are rooted much more deeply in our culture. Behaviorism and criminal law come from early 19th century behavioral economics and criminal theory (Jeremy Bentham). The basic theory is that we are all motivated solely by reward/punishment, pleasure/pain, and incentive/disincentive. The idea that punishment is what discourages criminals, and wages are what motivate workers, are modern Western ideas -- they are not values found in every culture, and they are not necessarily Biblical. But so many of us are told we have to constantly be on guard about what we reward or punish in our children.

I know this is broader than the original topic but I wanted to explain that, when I use the term "behaviorism," I'm not just refering to a field of psychology. I'm sure it overlaps and intersects with pscyhological behaviorism, but I probably use the key word to mean behavioral economics and the prevalent cultural attitude that grew out of all these disciplines. For me it's been revolutionary to learn about GBD and break free of the assumptions I was raised with. Using terms like "behaviorism" has really helped me in this process, and helped me communicate these concepts to other people. I see that in doing so, I probably haven't done justice to a useful and complicated field of psychology. I'm glad to hear that behavioralist psychologists are continuing to learn and grow in their search to help people feel and act better.

Also -- as a footnote -- to me, the issue of whether behavioralist approaches "work" with children is secondary to the main issue, which is that I have a moral obligation to do what's right, regardless of the "results." Measuring my own choices by the results I see is determinist morality (?) not God's morality. My goals as a parent are to respect my child, build a relationship with him and teach him. I trust that as I do so, God will help us all behave and cooperate as necessary for the service of His greater purpose. The disciplines of psychology, law and economics might help me think about these things, but they cannot be my primary tools or context.

[sadie]

Also -- as a footnote -- to me, the issue of whether behavioralist approaches "work" with children is secondary to the main issue, which is that I have a moral obligation to do what's right, regardless of the "results."

:clap :clap :clap

Well said.