Punished by Rewards (Really?)

[Mike Larson]

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?

[David L]

Thanks for the post. I have the book and use it as a reference source in conjunction with the rest of my personal library. I highly recommend it along with Kohn's other books.

Regarding your foremost query and the specific example you mention, it seems to me the coins would be a distraction to the child's ability to see and appreciate for himself the value of doing the house work for its own sake, along with you. As I see it, children usually hate house chores not because they are inherently loathsome, but because the parents usually lord it over them in some way, out of their own impatience or sense of entitlement over the child's actions, and it is this infringment upon his or her own individual freedom that s/he really despises and rebels against.

Personally I would give the child total freedom from all bribery and manipulative tricks, and let him participate and discover the value of house work for himself, in his own time and space. This of course requires a patience which most parents do not seem to have, which is why they interfere with and corrupt the chlld's natural voluntary impulses early on. 

You can't be a sincere voluntaryist while resorting to rewards, bribes, or any other manipulative stunts in your relationship with children or anyone else, in my view.

[Mike Larson]

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.

[David L]

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?

First try exploring the question this way. If you wanted your wife or girl friend to scratch your back, would you offer first to pay her for it in order to get what you want? If not, why not?

[Mike Larson]

If you wanted your wife or girl friend to scratch your back, would you offer first to pay her for it in order to get what you want? If not, why not?

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?

[TheRobin]

The way I undertood Kohn in this is like that: When you pay something for it, their motivation is the payment, and not the thing they do. So, IF you want your kid to value something then paying them to do it, will result in the exact opposite and they will even lose interest in it, if they don't get paid to do it. (Like you wouldn't mow a neighbours lawn without payment).So if you want to pay them to do something "for their own good" then paying them TO do it, will simply decrease the value they see in doing it in and of themselves.Or that's how I understood it. Hope my explanation makes some sense, not sure I formulated it perfectly

[Mike Larson]

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

 

[TheRobin]

Well, I haven't read the book (I started another one by Kohn, and heard that argument there, also on youtube, maybe you want to give that a shot before trying to work through the book btw). But Kohn usually bases his conclusion on studies (I never saw a man use that many pages of references and footnotes in his books).

[Magnus]

This book highlights the difference between a gift and a payment. 

A payment is something you earn. It occurs when 2 people negotiate with one another as equals. Payments are earned -- when one side performs, reciprocal performance is mandatory. Withholding it is unethical. 

Gifts are not. "Rewarding" someone implicitly establishes that the recipient is inferior. It implies that the reward may be legitimately withheld. 

The reason children underperform when given gold stars in school is that the existence of a system of gold stars carries the meta-message that the child should strive to please the teacher and curry her favor. It changes the motivation from the child's personal gain to one of supplication. 

Similarly, a truly free market is not built on rewards and incentives. It's built on profit (i.e., gain or benefit) and loss. People will always naturally pursue what they deem to be a benefit. 

[cherapple]

The difference is between voluntary and involuntary rewards. If someone freely chooses to do something to gain the benefit of it, then the reward is voluntary. On the other hand, if you have power over someone and use a reward to manipulate them, then the reward becomes a punishment. They are required to do what you want them to do in order to get it.

[David L]

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?

Yes, where there is a feeling of human community without conditions made upon it, the voluntary spirit has the freedom to come forth to offer itself freely. It feels what is appropriate to do without being bribed or coerced by extrinsic motivators, because there is a deeper sense of connection present between all concerned. Offering to pay money for some behavior indicates that there is a lack of this deeper connection between people. That's what needs to be addressed, I would say. While the bribe may win you what you want in the short term, it won't heal the sense of division and separation there.

Look at what happens when emergencies occur. When life is on the line, we usually don't stand back and calculate payment or take count of how much time we will contribute to one another to save lives or alleviate each other's suffering. I would say that this more spontaneous, humane behavior indicates we have touched upon our fundamental nature as unconditional caretakers of one another. Thus, it seems we obfuscate that nature when we resort to offering rewards to one another for preferred behavior. I think in the end it makes us apathetic and dulls our sensitivity. It can even make people rebel and do the opposite behavior, because we generally don't like the idea of being manipulated or bribed. It's an insult to our integrity as ethical beings.  

Not sure if you see what I mean.

[Unordinary Joe]

Alfie Kohn is against all forms of compitition. I don't think he ever referenced economics, but he said even competitive sports are bad. Kohn even has a book about how bad compitition is. No Contest: The Case Against Compitition. Honestly he is not my favorite when it comes to Voluntaryist lifestyle recources. A lot of his stuff is really good but there are things mixed in there that turn people off, like his rhetoric and this kind of stuff about compitition. I mean compitition is one the greatest incentives as proven through the free market. It's hard to buy into his arguments when compition in the market place is so well proven.

[David L]

 

Similarly, a truly free market is not built on rewards and incentives. It's built on profit (i.e., gain or benefit) and loss. People will always naturally pursue what they deem to be a benefit. 

 

Would you say that what truly benefits one truly benefits all?

[TheRobin]

@Joe: The way I understand it he uses the term "competition" differently that the free market idea of comeptition. The kind of comeptition he critizes is where people participate in win/lose situation (like sports, where you ONLY win when the other loses), not the ones where different ideas compete with each other to see which is best. Or like the free market where its about maximising efficient win-win situation.So can I presume, that you haven't read or listened to his material and this is mostly a reaction to the title? Or did I get Kohn's claim wrong? (I haven't read the book yet either, but I listened to an interview with him about this book)

[cherapple]

There's also a difference between chosen competition and competition that people are forced into, like sports (gym class) and grades in compulsory school.

[Magnus]

 

 

Similarly, a truly free market is not built on rewards and incentives. It's built on profit (i.e., gain or benefit) and loss. People will always naturally pursue what they deem to be a benefit. 

 

Would you say that what truly benefits one truly benefits all?

 

Your question is a bit vague, but if I understand what you mean, I would say -- definitely not.  Value is subjective.  Benefit is defined personally, and it varies widely not only from person-to-person, but from moment-to-moment.

Giving a child a gold star as a form of reward is no better than a punishment.  Reward and punishment are the two possible outcomes of a power-dominant relationship.  Giving people "rewards" implicitly reinforces the ability to dole out punishments.

[Mike Larson]

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?

 

[TheRobin]

@oldtincan: I'm not quite sure I undestand the first point. Isn't any reward necessarily arbitrary? Or do you mean that in a way that the reward is presented only as vague and uncertain and one party basically has no idea what it would be or even if there was an actual reward, that would be wanted?to your second point: I think in order to even call it "reward" it necessarily needs to be voluntary in nature, else it'd more sound to me like one person makes the other do stuff and then gives somethign for restitution or so.I think I remember Dayna Martin (in one of the two interviews with Stef) mentioning housework and reward. iird she said that they once made it like this: They had a list in the house with chores and respective rewards and if their kids wanted to earn some money (or extra money) they could do those chores if they wanted (or not if they didn't). But my memory is quite fuzzy on that one.@Joe: Just read a bit in Kohn's book about competitiion, my bad. I misinterpreted his interview and you're correct in that he makes a case even against competition in the economy. Though I have to say, so far his data seems to be really clear in that competition does not create an incentive (and often the exact opposite). This seems to be even true in soem business world examples. Anyway, I'm just at the start of the book (and now I'm actually really curious how it goes from where I am). I don't want to hijack this thread though, but I might open a new one, once I finished the book. As it seems a very intersting topic (also one that seems to have conflicting data in regarsd to commonly accepted free market theories, which would make it all the more intersting imo)

[PatrickC]

I think I remember Dayna Martin (in one of the two interviews with Stef) mentioning housework and reward. iird she said that they once made it like this: They had a list in the house with chores and respective rewards and if their kids wanted to earn some money (or extra money) they could do those chores if they wanted (or not if they didn't). But my memory is quite fuzzy on that one.

Your memory is quite correct, she did say that.. @ 31.28

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOt6-DLcKGM?t=31m26s]

[David L]

Do you think it is possible for a parent to offer a clearly defined
reward to a child that...is completely void of manipulation and guilt?

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see how any extrinsically offered reward can be void of a motive of manipulation. You are trying to manipulate the child's behavior, otherwise you wouldn't be offering the reward.

Perhaps the right approach here is to explore why it is we feel we can't just ask the child if he will do something we would like him to do, explaining why we would like him to do it. Wouldn't this be a more honest, constructive and revealing approach to our problem than merely resorting to bribes to get what we want?

 

[Mike Larson]

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?

 

[Mike Larson]

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.

[David L]

 

 I'm just exploring the additional possibility of using the 3rd option of trading or exchanging with children.

 

It's unclear though why you would resort to this tactic. If you believe that what you want the child to do is for his own good, why not explore (perhaps even with the child) why he doesn't want to do it?

If he's incapable of understanding his own self-benefit, how capable is he then of trading for his own benefit? You'll have to confess that you're merely manipulating him based upon his immaturity.

  
Wouldn't it be better in the long run for him to remain as close to the source of his own self-benefit as possible, rather than being distracted by lures away from them? Won't you be creating a bad habit in him, acclimating his mind to doing things, not for their inherent benefit and integrity, but for the sake of something else more immediately gratifying to him? Indeed, might you not be conditioning him deep down to become a bribe-prone individual for life, someone easily manipulated by others, crippled in seeing the virtue of doing beneficial things simply in and for themselves?

I've noticed many parents want their children to morph into adults as fast as possible. The paradox is that the best way to do this to let them be children as long as they need to be, while being there for them as an example of what they need to eventually become themselves.     

[Waster]

 

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?

 

I like the comment of David. But to add something to the discussion. There is a lot implicit in offering a reward to children for chores. It communicates that chores have no value in itself for the children, so they need an external reward. It communicates that children wont do them voluntarily. Most of the times it also assumes that children are lazy and need to have external stimuli to do chores. It also kills any curiosity and empathy. It doesnt explore why children dont want to do the chores. And children wont explore why they need to do chores. 

So i think that forcing, bribing or doing the chores yourself will all fail in achieving what you want. You want your children to be independent and making choices for themselves. Balancing long term and short term gains. So you have to teach, guide and explore those short term and long term gains. Bribing them with money is not going to teach them anything. So yes, it would hurt their long term potential doing house work. Because by not exploring the long term gains, you teach them to be impulsive, focused on immediate-gratification and sensitive to external stimuli. 

I am not a parent, but i had parents that chose to avoid all confrontations and do almost all the chores. I dont think i have learned a lot from that approach.

[LovePrevails]

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.

it's nice when you interpret an event so that it's consistent with your personal philosophy but it has nothing to do with the science or truth and falsehood when you do so.

The research shows that you are making your child selfish and robbing him/her of volition.

Later on when he is an adult he will find it hard to ever bother hoovering his room since he has no extrinsic motivation to do it.

You are habitutatng the child to extrinsic motivation.

 

It's better to sit down at a family meeting and speak about everything that has to be done, including your job (and/or your wifes)
and all the housework, and everything else that needs done

and negotiate deligations of all that work that people are happy with

 

that way we all know that all of us have to do certain things in life, some of which we get paid for and some of which we don't.

 

 

[PatrickC]

I agree that bribery is less than productive.. The reason because with many family enviroments bribery is met with punishment if the chore isn't completed. I like Dayna's view that when her children need extra money that they can do various chores that allow them to acquire resources for themselves. This seems to fall entirely in line with voluntary decision making, since she has no intention of punishing them for not doing these chores.

I had a friend recently that asked his 10 year old nephew to stop playing video games and go to the shop to buy something for him and his father. The child refused because he was enjoying his game. My friend proceeded to call up his friends to arrange a go karting event the following day. He told his nephew that he couldn't come because he had refused to help him.

I told my friend how unfair this was on his nephew. How was he to know that he may have gone go karting if he had done this chore? He said, well he needs to learn that when he helps someone he may get rewarded sometimes. I said, no that teaches him to be a slave to your needs and arbitrary rewards. We are all incentivised to do something when we know the rewards we will recieve. What my friend was effectively suggesting, was that he might go to work one day and his customer might decide not to pay him and he would be ok with that.

[Mike Larson]

 

It's unclear though why you would resort to this tactic. If you believe that what you want the child to do is for his own good, why not explore (perhaps even with the child) why he doesn't want to do it?

If he's incapable of understanding his own self-benefit, how capable is he then of trading for his own benefit? You'll have to confess that you're merely manipulating him based upon his immaturity.

 

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.

 

Won't you be creating a bad habit in him, acclimating his mind to doing things, not for their inherent benefit and integrity, but for the sake of something else more immediately gratifying to him?

Do you ever do things for immediate gratification rather than for their "inherent benefit and integrity"? Is there anything wrong with that?

[Mike Larson]

I find it intersting that you said this:

it's nice when you interpret an event so that it's consistent with your personal philosophy but it has nothing to do with the science or truth and falsehood when you do so.

Followed immediately by this:

 

The research shows that you are making your child selfish and robbing him/her of volition.

 

 

Just not sure how you can scientifically come to that conclusion when I have only been asking questions up to this point. I have never specifically said what I do or not do in relation to offering rewards or incentives to my children. I'm simply engaging in a philisophical discussion about parent/child relationships... trying to figure out through logic, reason, and emperical evidence how to achieve greater happiness in this area of my personal life.

And even if I would have said that I sometimes pay my children to do odd jobs around the house, would your statement be objective and proveable? How much rewarding and/or manipulating would it take to "make a child selfish" and "rob him/her volition"? Does this "research" you are referring to address the option of putting a list of chores/compensation on the fridge for your children to pick and choose from at their own leisure?

 

[David L]

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.

At least you are being honest here about your reasons for resorting to bribes, which you admit you do not administer for the child's good (!). By the way, and if I may ask, is a clean home more important to you than a clean relationship with your child? Paradoxically, you may find that if you value more the latter, the former will eventually fall into place without much effort.

Is there anything detrimental about making an offer to
exchange value for value... like Dayna's list idea?

Once again, by offering bribes for home chores, aren't you teaching children that the bribes are more valuable than the inherent independence and wholesomeness of home and family values? You are in effect uprooting the children from their natural bond to their home and its care,  preparing them to live for the larger, codependent marketplace of widespread alienation instead.

Do you ever do things for immediate gratification rather than for their
"inherent benefit and integrity"? Is there anything wrong with that?

Yes, I was brought up a bribed child in many ways (school is a supreme example) and I'm still in the process of healing from that unhealthy interference.  

[Hannibal]

I've not read the book, bt from what i've gathered it seems like this:

 

You don't want to pay people to take responsibility for themselves.

You do want to pay people for working for others.

 

Paying your kid to clean his room is the kiddie version of the welfare state. Pay your kid, instead, for prodctive work - even if it's contrived.

[LovePrevails]

 

I find it intersting that you said this:

it's nice when you interpret an event so that it's consistent with your personal philosophy but it has nothing to do with the science or truth and falsehood when you do so.

Followed immediately by this:

 

The research shows that you are making your child selfish and robbing him/her of volition.

 

 

Just not sure how you can scientifically come to that conclusion when I have only been asking questions up to this point. I have never specifically said what I do or not do in relation to offering rewards or incentives to my children. I'm simply engaging in a philisophical discussion about parent/child relationships... trying to figure out through logic, reason, and emperical evidence how to achieve greater happiness in this area of my personal life.

And even if I would have said that I sometimes pay my children to do odd jobs around the house, would your statement be objective and proveable? How much rewarding and/or manipulating would it take to "make a child selfish" and "rob him/her volition"? Does this "research" you are referring to address the option of putting a list of chores/compensation on the fridge for your children to pick and choose from at their own leisure?

 

 

First let me appologise if my approach to answering you sounded aggressive, that was not my intention (at least consciously) but I see how it easily reads that way

 

What I meant was that as voluntarists/libertarians/ancaps it may be most easy to think "hey/ modelling the free market here, it's voluntary/ nothing wrong with that"

and that seems consistent and to make sense. I also confess I did not read the entire thread but a number of posts and so perhaps I am at fault

I would guess that paying older children for the odd jobs is perhaps ok especially if they come under your responsibility, to teach them responsibility for money

-but I am no expert

 

what I would say is living in a house together will always requite everyone to take certain responsibilities and share others and not get a monetary reward for it

and that's what it is best to model and negotiate regarding

 

regards your question, the basic principle is you don't want to reward children for things they should be doing anyway or already do out of altruism

here are a couple of short clips: 

 

there was a great discussion on this particular topic on one of the progressive parenting groups I'm on on facebook but I don't think I have a link to it I'm sorry about that

I would have loved to share it

 

[Mike Larson]

LovePrevails: Thanks for your reply. Yes, I did take your prior comment as being aggressive, and maybe I took it a little too personally. In any case, I do appreciate your comments and enjoyed those youtube clips that you posted the links for.

I think what I am finding is that it is hard to settle on any absolute rule for parenting, because it seems as though there are so many grey areas. For instance, I agree that it might not be in a childs best interests to pay him to do something which ought to be his responsibility to do in the first place. But who's responsibility is it to clean the childs room? Who's responsibility is it to clean up the forts made of blankets, chairs, and pillows in the living room? Maybe it is the wrong approach to even think in terms of responsibilities.

What I've tried really hard to do during the past few months is to take a very respectful, non-coercive approach (not that I have ever spanked or anything like that) to interacting with my children... specifically in those cases where I have a need for something to be done that my children do not seem to have the same need for. For example, when I see a big pile of dishes in the kitchen sink, I will simply make a request (and make it very clear to my children that it is only a request and not a demand) that they help me to wash the dishes. What I'm finding is that my children have been responding quite positively to this approach. They won't always jump in and help, but I was actually quite pleasantly surprised to see how often they do. Still, there are times when this approach can be quite frustrating, specifically when I feel like what the thing that needs to be done ought to be the responsibility of the child in the first place. Maybe it is just my perspective that needs a bit more tweeking.

Oh, and I actually do occasionally pay my children for odd jobs like cleaning the car, mowing the lawn, and other things like that

[LovePrevails]

regarding rooms, I would say it's the childrens job if they are old enough - if there rooms get so bad they affect the rest of the house it's time to have a talk,

but  a child's room is the one place that is their own! they really need to learn from tehir own mistakes in this respect, my mum always used to try to verbally coerce me into doing things her way and that would put me off, but sometimes I didn't do things her way and I saw the consequences (whether it was damaging my property or something else) and that would reform me.

The forts are also there job but it's give and take here! You shouldn't always have to pick up after them, so why not be able to say, hey you guys I cleared up that fort earlier, I'm really busy right now and I could really do with some help with chores x y and z if you wouldn't mind helping I'd really appreciate the trade?

 

again this is my amateur opinion based on reading and I defer to the collective wisdom of the community but these approaches seem intuitive to me, 

 

When it comes to things like cleaning the car I always thought that was a great way to make some extra cash my friend and I went down the road ringing doorbells and we got paid not because we were great carwashers but people thought we were nice and loved us for trying! haha I guess I was lucky to live in a good neighbourhood

 

[David L]

 

What I've tried really hard to do during the past few months is to take a very respectful, non-coercive approach (not that I have ever spanked or anything like that) to interacting with my children... specifically in those cases where I have a need for something to be done that my children do not seem to have the same need for. For example, when I see a big pile of dishes in the kitchen sink, I will simply make a request (and make it very clear to my children that it is only a request and not a demand) that they help me to wash the dishes. What I'm finding is that my children have been responding quite positively to this approach. They won't always jump in and help, but I was actually quite pleasantly surprised to see how often they do.

 

 

Yes, I think that's a taste of it. You get a real sense of pleasure when the children are voluntarily helping out, from their own developing sense of rightness.  I think that the closer you get to them in the sense of true friendship and appreciation, the more they will want to be around you and thus naturally help out, out of a joy of just being and doing together. Thanks for sharing.

[SaintElsewhere]

I think a better title would have been "Punished by incentives." A lot of businesses today are talking about the studies showing the cases in which incentives can hurt performance. What they find is that in some specific circumstances people drastically underperform when offered monetary incentives. There was a study done in Sweden (I think) where they showed that if you offered people $50 to donate blood they are something like half as likely to donate than if you just appeal to their conscience. Other studies show that creative work and certain kinds of problem solving suffer when people are offered incentives, probably because they feel less self motivated. Monetary incentives do seem to work when people are doing work that could be considered boring or drudge work.

 

An example in real life is open source software. If ten years ago I told you that a group of motley programmers, working for free without a central authority, would produce a product that would annihilate Microsoft in the market, you would think I was nuts. But that's exactly what happened with the Apache web server. And Microsoft poured millions into their project.

 

I really think this kind of thing shows the strength of voluntarism honestly. When we are self motivated we can do many things simply for the joy of it.