Mike Larson

But what if the reason why I want to "use the 3rd option" of exchange with my child is not because I want him to do it for his own good, but because I have a felt need for a cleaner house than he feels is necessary. Is there anything detrimental about making an offer to exchange value for value... like Dayna's list idea? It's not that I think he is incabable of understanding his own self-benefit. It is that I understand that we value things differently. Rather than manipulating him based upon his own immaturity, I am giving him an opportunity to engage in productive exchanges with other human beings in a safe and secure environment. Do you ever do things for immediate gratification rather than for their "inherent benefit and integrity"? Is there anything wrong with that?

David L: When I used the term "manipulation" I was thinking of the negative definition of that word... like this one in Webster's online dictionary: Manipulate - to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage. With this definition in mind, I think it is possible to offer a reward void of manipulation. I agree that your suggested approach would be the most ideal way to go about it. I just think that most parents, including myself, are interested in finding other ways to solicite help when the simple request fails. I think we all understand that there are 4 ways to get what we want in this world... by forcing others, by doing it yourself, by trading with others, or by request (or receiving a gift). The first one is obviously off the table for anyone subscribing to the NAP. You are suggesting the 4th option. I'm just exploring the additional possibility of using the 3rd option of trading or exchanging with children.

TheRobin: Yes, what I meant by an arbitrary reward is one in which either the reward itself or the required actions for earning the reward could vary (after the fact), depending on the whims of the giver. For example, a parent tells a child that he will be given $2.00 for mopping a floor, and the child mops the floor, and then the parent notices that the child's room is not clean and says "oh, and no payment will be given until your room is clean". This is what I was originally the kind of thing I was thinking about when I was thinking of the word arbitrary. But after writing out the example, I realize that arbitrary is too soft of a word. The word I was probably looking for is dishonest or fraudulent. I think your point about a reward, by definition, being voluntary in nature is valid. I guess what I was trying to get at is that I think parent's will sometimes offer a "reward" to their children which is not really a reward at all...but more like an attempt at compensating them for doing something that they would have forced the child to do anyway (as you described above). So my question about Dayna's "list" suggestion is this: Would that approach in any way diminish a childs long term potential to appreciate doing house work for the internal satisfaction of having a clean house?

So perhaps there are a few things to consider when thinking about using rewards (or compensation) to influence a child's behavior... 1. Is the reward arbitrary? If it is not objectively and clearly defined, then maybe it enters into the realm of a master/slave relationship... which is dammaging to both parties. The slave (child) will feel the necessity of gaining favour with the master (parent) who has the power to give or take. 2. Is there any manipulation or guilt involved? Is the agreement completely voluntary in nature? Or is there an unspoken understanding that there really isn't a choice about whether or not to enter the agreement. But the child complies considering that a forced carrot is better than no carrot at all. Do you think it is possible for a parent to offer a clearly defined reward to a child that and is completely void of manipulation and guilt? One other question... Do you see children more as guests in your home who have no obligation to assist with cleaning, cooking, etc... or do you see them as partners in the home who have an obligation or duty to assist (where able) with the household chores? Or a third option?

Yeah, I guess a better or more relevant question (to my original lawn mowing example) would be: if someone paid me to cut my own lawn for several years, would that increase or decrease the liklihood that I would want to cut my own lawn after he stopped paying me? The "Punished by Rewards" argument seems to being suggesting that the very act of being paid for cutting my own lawn would decrease the liklihood that I would find intrinsic value in a freshly cut lawn once I stopped being paid. I'm not sure why that would be true. I can really see it going either way or making no difference at all. Maybe I just need to read the book

No, I would not offer to pay her for it (unless my back was really, really itchy[]). The reason why I would not pay her is because it's one of those things that you kind of just expect in a relationship. I would hope that I could make a simple request for a back scratch, if that was what I was needing, and that she would be happy to oblige. It would even be more ideal if she just knew that I liked getting back scratches and voluntarily gave them to me every once in a while without my having to ask. So what is the fundamental difference between the scratch example and the mowing example? In the case of the lawn there is an explicit trade... value for value. In the case of the scratch, there is an implicit trade. The reason why I married my wife is because she brings me joy... I value her mind and her companionship... which would include the little things she does like giving me back scratches. I imagine she married me for similar reasons. So there is still a trade going on, it is just not so clearly defined or explicit as I mentioned. It is more flexible and there is much greater commitment to each other. So which situation does the vacuum example more closely relate to? I'm not sure? Are you suggesting that there is already some kind of an implicit trade or aggrement between a child and a parent where the child is in a sense obligated to clean the house without pay?... that by introducing a monetary reward you are undermining the implicit obligation as well as the relationship?

Is it bribery to pay a neighbor to cut your lawn for you? How is this different than paying your child to vacuum a room? You are exchanging value for value. You are not telling your child that it his obligation. You are not "lording it over them". I'm not sure how this is manipulative. I'm not asking these questions just to be difficult. I sincerely want to know the reasoning behind what you are saying. I've thought a lot about this topic and am really trying to take a logical approach in the way I interact with my children. I'm currently unschooling my children, but am starting to lean more toward radical unschooling, which from what I've read involves the sort of ideas you are talking about. I'm fully on board with the non-manipulative, non-coercive, peaceful parenting approach. I'm just a little confused about this whole business of rewards, and where they may or may not be the best option. While I disagree that paying a child to do chores is in any way manipulative, I can kind of see what you are saying when you suggest that by doing so I may be making it more difficult for the child to discover the value of house work for himself. But I'm not even really convinced of that. For example, if I don't value a freshly cut lawn, but someone pays me to cut theirs, does that, in any way, diminish the possibility that I will eventually come to value a nicely manacured lawn (and therefore be motivated to take care of my own yard)? Perhaps the opposite is true. Maybe by regulary seeing the beauty of my work with someone else's yard on a regular basis, I will be more likely to want the same for myself.

Great insight! I have always seperated the NAP from other "moral" principles in my own mind and thought that it ought to be in it's own category, but couldn't really figure out how to articulate the distinction. Thanks for sharing

Has anyone read Alfie Kohn's book "Punished by Rewards"? Just from reading the overview, I think that it may have some really great arguments--especially around the futility of using punishment as a way to influence others. But I'm skeptical about the general idea that rewards actually represent punishment. Isn't the whole market system based on rewards and incentives? More importantly, what do you think about using rewards as a way to influence your children? I'm trying to figure out a logical approach to this. I think that it really depends on the specific action or behavior that is being encouraged. Basically, I think that it is not a great idea idea to try to encourage things of a moral nature (kindness, helpfulness, etc) by using rewards... like I wouldn't want to tell a child that if he is really good at sharing his toys he will get a reward. But I don't think it would be harmful to ask a child to do a few extra jobs around the house in exchange for a few coins. For those of you who have read the book, do you think it was worth the read?