Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!mot!waycott
From: waycott@mot.UUCP (John Waycott)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: re: Positive Reinforcement
Message-ID: <486@mot.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 19:21:32 EST
Article-I.D.: mot.486
Posted: Tue Dec 31 19:21:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 08:17:50 EST
References: <286@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ  85282
Lines: 21

> > to me that positive reinforcement would teach the child to do a
> > certain thing EXPECTING to be praised for it. Once the praise disappears,
> > the child would then have no reason to continue behaving that way.
> 
> You're right.  There are similar problems with any form of conditioning.
> The conditioned behavior is extinguished.  Rather than suddenly stopping the
> praise, you switch from continuous reinforcement to intermittant
> reinforcement.  I forget which conditioning schedule is the most effective,

Instead of switching to interrmitent behavior, what I do is gradually tone
down the praise.  For example, when my daughter first learned how to put
dirty glasses in the sink, I would hug and kiss her and tell her what a
nice thing it was for her to do so.  Once that behavior was established
I stopped the hugging and kissing but told her how nice it was that she
put a dirty glass in the sink.  Now she gets a smile and a simple
"thankyou".  Does any one know how effective this is compared to
switching to intermittent praise?  It seems to work for us.
-- 
John Waycott, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ, (602) 438-3164
{seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4, attunix}!mot!waycott
oakhill!mot!waycott@ut-sally.ARPA