Kylierose wrote:

I diagree with this. I believe that instead of bad behaviour being punished, that good behaviour should be rewarded. Too many teenagers have negative issues to deal with in their lifes and so by punishing their bad behaviour they will not respond positively with this.

Kylierose wrote:

I diagree with this. I believe that instead of bad behaviour being punished, that good behaviour should be rewarded. Too many teenagers have negative issues to deal with in their lifes and so by punishing their bad behaviour they will not respond positively with this.

Encoreliber wrote:

Maybe you get mad because your little sister stacked chairs to reach a cookie jar high up. I wouldn't, I'd think it's inventive as shit.

Placebo wrote:

Punishment works as a method for teaching what one deems as correct behaviour, but also see positive and negative reinforcement. These reward one for doing a desired action and have been used in experiments (Search B.F. Skinner) on animals to great effect.

hannah63 wrote:

Any parent who'd punish their kid for something like this, is just looking for an excuse to punish them. I'd shake my head, tell them to get down and warn them they'd hurt themselves if they did it again. Positively enforcing would be, 'if you're good, you can have a cookie later, but don't stack the chairs again.' But I know some parents who are constantly stressed out, would probably put the kid on the floor and then scream at them, which is the worst way to react.

Leonodas wrote:

>Catches child doing this
>Uses your method
>Child, seeing no reaction, does it again anyway
>Falls, breaks neck, etc

Children seek to test the boundaries. Few, if any children will take a suggestion like that (for indeed, that sounds like a mere suggestion not to get hurt) seriously unless there is something that helps them remember what they are risking. Scolding/immediate negative reinforcement is tangible to the child, because you are doing it right then and there; falling down and getting seriously injured is hardly tangible unless the child has done it before.

Negative reinforcement that is immediate and not personal or drawn out is effective for setting boundaries. Positive reinforcement is good for advancing merits within those boundaries such as honesty and personal responsibility.

hannah63 wrote:

I dunno, I think it's a lot more reasonable to give a warning before outright scalding them. I see it done everyday; I live amongst seven other siblings, and when told to stop doing something or they'd end up hurting themselves, the majority of the time they'll stop doing it. I've also seen one of them try to climb a particularly high wall before, and my dad has caught them and yelled at them in anger. Ten minutes later, the same kid is climbing the wall again. Like you said, they like to test the boundaries. Really all depends on the specific child, the parents and the methods of punishment used.

hannah63 wrote:

Oh God, A-Level Psychology.

The nightmares...

Placebo wrote:

I don't do psychology, but if this is in your curriculum then I'd assume it's an interesting one.

Musicaddicted wrote:

I don't really believe in true punishment for bad behavior or true reward for good behavior. If you punish for every "bad" behavior, eventually the punishments mean nothing or are ignored. If you reward for every "good" behavior then the child grows into a person who needs validation for their actions and cannot face their own shortcomings.

Its a difficult balance that has to be maintained between the two. Verbal acknowledgment of a good action can go farther than a reward if it comes from the right person at the right time, and a constructive criticism can be used to deal with bad behavior just as well. Words have more power than most people believe, actions are not always the best choice.

Like, in my high school, bad behavior resulted in kids being transferred to a district/disciplinary school for various periods of time. Kids eventually decided it wasn't so bad over there, even though they weren't allowed phones and such or interaction with friends. District became a joke. The kids who acted poorly and were forced to remain in the courses they acted badly in, while receiving little attention for their poor actions, were the ones who, in the end worked it out and acted properly.

Another thing about positive reinforcement though is that those who never do anything to be reinforced, lose the will to even try. Everyone has been in those classes where there was a student who was exactly in the middle, neither good nor bad. They were neither attention seeking nor seeking solitude. When someone like that isn't bad enough to receive negative attention nor good enough to receive positive attention, they tend to quite trying at all.

Sorry for the long response. I did a research paper over this last semester, so my opinions are still a bit fresh hah.

Savoir wrote:

The thing is with behavioural problems being rewarded/punished is, I saw a hell of a lot in school that if people behave on a regular basis they won't be rewarded, but if someone who is usually naughty on a regular basis but is behaving like the rest, they will be rewarded, being extremely unfair on those who have behaved properly the whole time