We've talked here a lot about when +R becomes manipulation. In looking at the odd parenting site (no NOT the ones which teach you how to flood you baby to sleep in 3 easy stages.....) I've come across this one.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.html

The article http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm deals with this issue. I'm not convinced but have only skim-read it. For me it still all comes down to our choice of behaviours to reinforce. I like to think I don't/won't only reinforce those which benefit me. And I hope that Billy/Jak perform self-motivating behaviours as well. If I praise those behaviours as well then, true, I am still perhaps influencing them. But equally would not praising lead to some level of extinction? Hmmmm, I think maybe this could get silly!!

Hi catherine,
Really interesting article. Can't comment on kids as i don't have any but where anumals are concerned, my thoughts on all this are summed up by a little anecdote that I will tell you if you don't mind.
I have a very good friend who is a dog trainer and has her own dog club. I happened to be watching her teach some 'pet' people one night and a man in the class asked her about praise, +ve reinforecment etc. He said that it didn't really work for his dog. My friend asked the bloke if he liked football. He replied that he did and in fact played in a sunday league. She then asked him how he would feel if she came to watch him one day and at the end of the game, told him he'd played well. He said he'd be reasonable pleased with that. Next, she asked him how he would feel if david Beckham had watched him play and had said 'well played, good game' at the end of it. The guys face said it all. He said he'd be absolutely over the moon. When my friend asked why he'd have this reaction to david bedckham but be only 'reasonably pleased' if she told him the same thing he replied 'because David Beckham is my hero'. My friend then explained that to her dogs, she is their hero. That relationship is at the heart of all her interactions and praise/rewards from her mean so much more to them than random praise or even treats from someone else. Now I'm sure people will jump in and tell me about all the times they've got peoples dog/horses doing stuff that the owner couldn't get and I;d agree. I've done that too. I acknowledge that you can get great things from animals using +R having just met them. However, I also know that with my own dogs, we get to a point where my good opinion of them becomes so much more important to them than whatever tasty treat I 've got on offer. I don't understand this - I just know its true. I've felt it so many times over the years. Praise from someone you respect and trust means so much more than from someone with whom you don't have that kind of relationship. I think the problem with most animal owners and probably a lot of parents these days is that they don't have that relationship with their animals/children so the +ve reinforcement they use looses some of its power.
Just my thoughts anyway.
Cath

Definitely agree that praise can be a powerful reinforcer in its own right. I'm finding that with Sam already. Although that may be in part because he's desperately trying to do the right thing so there' s a -R element as well.

But the reason I brought this thread up was because I met someone who rated Alfie Kohn highly and claimed she didn't need to use +R with her kids. And that they responded less well than if she said nothing. We got on ok, shared various militant views and enjoyed a shared rant. But there was something scary about her that made me think praise from her might not be very reinforcing and the -R from getting some peace and quiet might be going on! Wished I could have been a fly on the wall for a little while....

I've been reading a little more about this idea of not using +R with children (Deborah Jackson again, my new hero, "Do Not Disturb") and think I understand it a little better. The suggestion is that children find certain behaviours intrinsically motivating. But if we start to intervene with the typical +R used for children eg praise, gold star charts etc, the motivation becomes more about the praise/stars etc rather than the intrinsic value.

I'd agree with that. but for me that doesn't change the fact that +R is taking place, just that the intrinsic value is more salient than anything extra I can give. It seems that we're back to the idea that +R needs to be something external to the "trainee". I'm not sure it does, although psychology texts typically seem to assume it is. I think "feel good factor" is one of the strongest reinforcers there is, at least in humans.

Any other thoughts??

Catherine