{"id":330,"date":"2026-04-24T00:22:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T00:22:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/?post_type=chapter&p=330"},"modified":"2026-05-21T21:06:29","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T21:06:29","slug":"approaches-to-guidance","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/chapter\/approaches-to-guidance\/","title":{"raw":"Approaches to Guidance","rendered":"Approaches to Guidance"},"content":{"raw":"We're going to briefly look at how things have been done since the beginning of time and why they no longer work. I have had so many parents and teachers in my private practice and in my work in schools who really felt like they were a failure. They were doing everything their parents or their teachers did, and yet children weren't reacting the way they and others did.\r\n\r\nThere's a simple reason why the things that did work in the past, on\u00a0some level, are totally inappropriate and fail today.\u00a0Traditional approaches really only used two tools, and I'm hoping that you can guess what those two were.\u00a0Think about what your parents used,\u00a0what your teachers, what their parents,\u00a0and their grandparents used, see if you can\u00a0name what those two things are that people used to discipline,\u00a0to guide, and to manage behavior.\u00a0I hope you were able to identify them as punishments and rewards, carrots and sticks,\u00a0external things to try to control the children\u2019s behavior.\r\n

The Historical Heritage That Explains These Tools<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nFor most of human history, social organization has been structured around systems of hierarchical or vertical power<\/strong>, in which authority flows from the top down. In these systems, those in positions of power direct, control, and regulate the behavior of those beneath them. Obedience is expected, and compliance is typically maintained through systems of reward and punishment. These \u201cpower over\u201d structures have shaped families, governments, religious institutions, and educational systems across cultures and historical periods.\r\n\r\nIn early human societies, survival often depended on clear leadership and the ability to make quick, decisive actions. While some hunter-gatherer groups exhibited relatively egalitarian characteristics, many still relied on individuals with greater strength, experience, or influence to guide group decisions (Boehm, 1999). In such contexts, authority was closely tied to survival, and compliance with leadership was often necessary for group cohesion and protection.\r\n\r\nAs human societies became more complex, hierarchical structures became increasingly formalized. In ancient civilizations, power was often centralized and reinforced through religious, legal, and cultural systems. In ancient Egypt, for example, the Pharaoh was regarded as a divine ruler whose authority was absolute and unquestioned. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, legal systems such as the Code of Hammurabi institutionalized hierarchy by prescribing different consequences based on social status, thereby reinforcing unequal power relationships (Van De Mieroop, 2007).\r\n\r\nIn ancient China, Confucian philosophy emphasized ordered relationships defined by hierarchy and obligation, including those between ruler and subject and parent and child. These relationships were seen as essential to maintaining social harmony and stability (Yao, 2000). In ancient Rome, the concept of paterfamilias<\/em> granted the male head of household extensive authority over family members, including control over property and, in some cases, life and death (Rawson, 1999). Across these civilizations, power was legitimized through tradition, law, and belief systems, and obedience was considered both necessary and virtuous.\r\n\r\nDuring the Middle Ages, hierarchical power structures became deeply embedded in both political and religious life. Feudal systems organized society into rigid layers, with kings, nobles, and peasants occupying clearly defined roles. Authority was largely determined by birth, and social mobility was limited. The doctrine of the divine right of kings further reinforced vertical power by asserting that monarchs derived their authority directly from God, making obedience not only a legal expectation but also a moral and religious obligation (Bloch, 1961).\r\n\r\nReligious institutions also played a significant role in reinforcing hierarchical structures. The Church held considerable influence over both spiritual and social life, and religious teachings often emphasized submission to authority and adherence to established norms. Together, political and religious systems created a powerful framework in which \u201cpower over\u201d relationships were normalized and sustained.\r\n\r\nEven as societies moved into the early modern and industrial periods, vertical power structures remained dominant. Within families, authority was typically concentrated in the hands of the father or male head of household, and children were expected to obey without question. Discipline was often enforced through strict control and physical punishment, reflecting broader societal beliefs about authority and obedience.\r\n\r\nEducational systems mirrored these hierarchical patterns. Teachers were positioned as unquestioned authorities, and students were expected to comply with rules and directives. Learning environments often emphasized order, discipline, and conformity, with punishment and reward used as primary tools for managing behavior.\r\n\r\nThe Industrial Revolution further reinforced hierarchical organization, particularly in the workplace. Factory systems were designed around efficiency and control, with clear divisions between those who managed and those who labored. Workers were expected to follow instructions precisely, and authority was rarely questioned. These structures reflected and reinforced the broader cultural acceptance of top-down control as necessary for productivity and order (Foucault, 1977).\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

An Exploration of the Tools Inherited From This Old Paradigm: Punishments and Rewards\u00a0 <\/strong><\/h2>\r\n

What We Know About Punishment in General<\/h3>\r\nPunishment has been one of the most widely used tools for managing behavior throughout human history. It is based on the assumption that if a behavior is followed by a negative consequence, that behavior will decrease. While punishment can sometimes produce immediate compliance, research consistently shows that its effects are typically short-term and dependent on external control, <\/strong>not to mention all of the negative side effects, even when it can accomplish a short-term goal.\r\n\r\nIn most cases, punishment suppresses behavior only when the authority figure is present and able to enforce consequences. When that external control is removed, the behavior often returns. A familiar everyday example can be seen in driving behavior: very few of us obey speed limit laws unless there is a law enforcement presence monitoring us. This illustrates a key limitation of punishment: it does not necessarily lead to internalized responsibility.\r\n\r\nPunishment has also been assumed to have an effect as a deterrent. It is assumed that people won\u2019t engage in behavior that they observe being punished. Despite extensive use of punitive systems, including incarceration, research indicates that punishment alone has very limited effectiveness in reducing long-term criminal behavior. Recidivism rates for people being imprisoned remain very high, suggesting that punishment does not reliably produce lasting behavioral change (National Research Council, 2014).\r\n\r\nBecause most of us are stuck in the vertical paradigm of Power-Over, it\u2019s often believed that if a punishment didn\u2019t work, it was just not strong enough. Somehow, in our efforts to teach people that killing is wrong, people have even ardently advocated for the death penalty as a tool to accomplish that goal. A substantial body of research has consistently found that not even the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder. Reviews conducted by organizations such as the National Research Council (2012) have concluded that existing studies provide no credible evidence that capital punishment reduces homicide rates.\r\n\r\nObviously, if someone is a proven threat to commit murder or some other grave crime that impacts the community, the community needs to be protected from them. But this is most reasonably provided by incarceration for life if necessary. One of the most persistent misconceptions about punishment, particularly the death penalty, is that it is more cost-effective than long-term incarceration. In reality, the opposite is true. Research consistently shows that capital punishment is significantly more expensive than life imprisonment, with estimates indicating that death penalty cases cost between 2.5 and 5 times more than cases resulting in life without parole (Death Penalty Information Center, 2025). Not only does capital punishment fail to demonstrate a clear deterrent effect, but it also requires substantially greater public resources than alternative approaches.\r\n

Predictable Consequences and Side-Effects<\/h3>\r\nBeyond its limited effectiveness, punishment often produces unintended negative outcomes, particularly in children. When children are punished, their immediate response is frequently emotional rather than reflective. Feelings such as anger, fear, shame, or resentment can become the primary focus of attention, reducing the likelihood that the child will understand or internalize the intended lesson (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).\r\n\r\nResearch has identified several common responses children may have to punishment, including avoidance of the punishing adult, increased secrecy or attempts to avoid detection, retaliation or aggression, reduced self-esteem, and compliance driven by fear rather than understanding. These responses can interfere with the development of internal regulation and responsibility.\r\n\r\nOne of the most concerning forms of punishment is corporal punishment. Despite growing awareness of its risks, it remains widely used. In the United States, studies indicate that a majority of adults report having been physically punished as children, and a significant proportion of parents continue to use spanking as a disciplinary strategy (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).\r\n\r\nA large meta-analysis of decades of research found that corporal punishment is associated with increased aggression, antisocial behavior, mental health problems, and damaged parent\u2013child relationships, while showing no evidence of long-term positive outcomes (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). In some cases, physical punishment can escalate into abuse, with serious and lasting consequences.\r\n

Rewards Can Be Just as Ineffective and Damaging as Punishment<\/h3>\r\nIf punishment represents one side of the traditional \u201cpower over\u201d model, rewards represent the other. While rewards are often viewed as positive and harmless, a growing body of research suggests that they share many of the same limitations as punishment and may also undermine important aspects of development.\r\n\r\nRewards operate by reinforcing behavior through external incentives such as praise, stickers, privileges, or tangible items. Like punishment, they rely on external control rather than internal motivation. Over time, this can lead individuals to become dependent on rewards rather than developing a genuine understanding of or commitment to the behavior itself.\r\n\r\nResearch in motivation theory has shown that external rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, the natural desire to engage in an activity for its own sake (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). When children come to expect rewards for behaviors they might otherwise do willingly, their internal motivation can decrease. They may begin to ask, \u201cWhat do I get?\u201d rather than \u201cIs this the right thing to do?\u201d\r\n\r\nAlfie Kohn (1999) has been particularly influential in critiquing the use of rewards in education and parenting. He summarized hundreds of research studies on rewards in his book, Punished by Rewards<\/em><\/strong> (1993).<\/em>\r\n
\r\n

Key Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n\r\nHere are the important points from that book that can help us look more critically at what most of us have absorbed unconsciously from our culture and upbringing.\r\n
    \r\n \t
  • The Problem with Rewards<\/strong>\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • Rewards don\u2019t teach why a behavior is valuable; they just train children to \u201cget the prize.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Repeated use of rewards can make people less interested in the task itself.<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Rewards often reduce creativity, risk-taking, and deep thinking.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Rewards = Control<\/strong>\r\n
        \r\n \t
      • Rewards are often used to manipulate behavior (\u201cIf you do X, you\u2019ll get Y\u201d).<\/li>\r\n \t
      • This undermines autonomy and creates compliance, not cooperation or character.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Motivation and internal interest fade.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • The value of the reward has to increase to obtain the same level of compliance.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Praise as a Form of Reward is Just as Bad<\/strong>\r\n
          \r\n \t
        • General praise (\u201cGood job!\u201d) is a verbal reward that can become a subtle form of control.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • Children may become dependent on external validation rather than developing self-assessment skills.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • Praise can inhibit exploration and experimentation; people do not want to try new things that may not earn the same praise.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • It can decrease trust of the person giving the praise.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • Any short-term gain or satisfaction is outweighed by long-term consequences.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nSimilarly, Marshall Rosenberg (2003) characterized both punishment and reward as forms of \u201cviolent\u201d communication, not in a physical sense, but in the way they attempt to control behavior through external means rather than supporting autonomy and mutual respect. From this perspective, rewards can be seen as a form of manipulation, encouraging behavior for the sake of approval rather than genuine connection or understanding.\r\n\r\nAs with punishment, there may be limited situations in which reinforcement strategies can be useful, particularly in structured interventions for children with specific developmental needs. However, when used as a primary approach to guidance, rewards can undermine all of the fundamental goals we have for children. We will explain and discuss the very important differences between encouragement<\/strong> and praise in the next chapter.\r\n\r\n
          \r\n\r\n

          References<\/h2>\r\n
            \r\n \t
          1. Bloch, M. (1961). Feudal society (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
          2. Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
          3. Death Penalty Information Center. (2025). Costs. https:\/\/deathpenaltyinfo.org\/policy-issues\/policy\/costs<\/li>\r\n \t
          4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The \u201cwhat\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227\u2013268.<\/li>\r\n \t
          5. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.<\/li>\r\n \t
          6. Gershoff, E.T. and Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43),\u00a030(4), 453\u2013469. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/fam0000191<\/li>\r\n \t
          7. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards. The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin and Company<\/li>\r\n \t
          8. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) position statement. NAEYC.<\/li>\r\n \t
          9. National Research Council. (2012).\u00a0Deterrence and the death penalty. The National Academies Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17226\/13363<\/li>\r\n \t
          10. National Research Council. 2014.\u00a0The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
          11. Rawson, B. (1999). The family in ancient Rome: New perspectives. Cornell University Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
          12. Rosenberg, M. B. (2003).\u00a0Nonviolent communication: A language of life\u00a0(2nd ed.). PuddleDancer Press<\/li>\r\n \t
          13. Van De Mieroop, M. (2007). A history of the ancient Near East ca. 3000\u2013323 BC (2nd ed.). Blackwell.<\/li>\r\n \t
          14. Yao, X. (2000). An introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge University Press.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>","rendered":"

            We’re going to briefly look at how things have been done since the beginning of time and why they no longer work. I have had so many parents and teachers in my private practice and in my work in schools who really felt like they were a failure. They were doing everything their parents or their teachers did, and yet children weren’t reacting the way they and others did.<\/p>\n

            There’s a simple reason why the things that did work in the past, on\u00a0some level, are totally inappropriate and fail today.\u00a0Traditional approaches really only used two tools, and I’m hoping that you can guess what those two were.\u00a0Think about what your parents used,\u00a0what your teachers, what their parents,\u00a0and their grandparents used, see if you can\u00a0name what those two things are that people used to discipline,\u00a0to guide, and to manage behavior.\u00a0I hope you were able to identify them as punishments and rewards, carrots and sticks,\u00a0external things to try to control the children\u2019s behavior.<\/p>\n

            The Historical Heritage That Explains These Tools<\/strong><\/h2>\n

            For most of human history, social organization has been structured around systems of hierarchical or vertical power<\/strong>, in which authority flows from the top down. In these systems, those in positions of power direct, control, and regulate the behavior of those beneath them. Obedience is expected, and compliance is typically maintained through systems of reward and punishment. These \u201cpower over\u201d structures have shaped families, governments, religious institutions, and educational systems across cultures and historical periods.<\/p>\n

            In early human societies, survival often depended on clear leadership and the ability to make quick, decisive actions. While some hunter-gatherer groups exhibited relatively egalitarian characteristics, many still relied on individuals with greater strength, experience, or influence to guide group decisions (Boehm, 1999). In such contexts, authority was closely tied to survival, and compliance with leadership was often necessary for group cohesion and protection.<\/p>\n

            As human societies became more complex, hierarchical structures became increasingly formalized. In ancient civilizations, power was often centralized and reinforced through religious, legal, and cultural systems. In ancient Egypt, for example, the Pharaoh was regarded as a divine ruler whose authority was absolute and unquestioned. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, legal systems such as the Code of Hammurabi institutionalized hierarchy by prescribing different consequences based on social status, thereby reinforcing unequal power relationships (Van De Mieroop, 2007).<\/p>\n

            In ancient China, Confucian philosophy emphasized ordered relationships defined by hierarchy and obligation, including those between ruler and subject and parent and child. These relationships were seen as essential to maintaining social harmony and stability (Yao, 2000). In ancient Rome, the concept of paterfamilias<\/em> granted the male head of household extensive authority over family members, including control over property and, in some cases, life and death (Rawson, 1999). Across these civilizations, power was legitimized through tradition, law, and belief systems, and obedience was considered both necessary and virtuous.<\/p>\n

            During the Middle Ages, hierarchical power structures became deeply embedded in both political and religious life. Feudal systems organized society into rigid layers, with kings, nobles, and peasants occupying clearly defined roles. Authority was largely determined by birth, and social mobility was limited. The doctrine of the divine right of kings further reinforced vertical power by asserting that monarchs derived their authority directly from God, making obedience not only a legal expectation but also a moral and religious obligation (Bloch, 1961).<\/p>\n

            Religious institutions also played a significant role in reinforcing hierarchical structures. The Church held considerable influence over both spiritual and social life, and religious teachings often emphasized submission to authority and adherence to established norms. Together, political and religious systems created a powerful framework in which \u201cpower over\u201d relationships were normalized and sustained.<\/p>\n

            Even as societies moved into the early modern and industrial periods, vertical power structures remained dominant. Within families, authority was typically concentrated in the hands of the father or male head of household, and children were expected to obey without question. Discipline was often enforced through strict control and physical punishment, reflecting broader societal beliefs about authority and obedience.<\/p>\n

            Educational systems mirrored these hierarchical patterns. Teachers were positioned as unquestioned authorities, and students were expected to comply with rules and directives. Learning environments often emphasized order, discipline, and conformity, with punishment and reward used as primary tools for managing behavior.<\/p>\n

            The Industrial Revolution further reinforced hierarchical organization, particularly in the workplace. Factory systems were designed around efficiency and control, with clear divisions between those who managed and those who labored. Workers were expected to follow instructions precisely, and authority was rarely questioned. These structures reflected and reinforced the broader cultural acceptance of top-down control as necessary for productivity and order (Foucault, 1977).<\/p>\n

            \n

            An Exploration of the Tools Inherited From This Old Paradigm: Punishments and Rewards\u00a0 <\/strong><\/h2>\n

            What We Know About Punishment in General<\/h3>\n

            Punishment has been one of the most widely used tools for managing behavior throughout human history. It is based on the assumption that if a behavior is followed by a negative consequence, that behavior will decrease. While punishment can sometimes produce immediate compliance, research consistently shows that its effects are typically short-term and dependent on external control, <\/strong>not to mention all of the negative side effects, even when it can accomplish a short-term goal.<\/p>\n

            In most cases, punishment suppresses behavior only when the authority figure is present and able to enforce consequences. When that external control is removed, the behavior often returns. A familiar everyday example can be seen in driving behavior: very few of us obey speed limit laws unless there is a law enforcement presence monitoring us. This illustrates a key limitation of punishment: it does not necessarily lead to internalized responsibility.<\/p>\n

            Punishment has also been assumed to have an effect as a deterrent. It is assumed that people won\u2019t engage in behavior that they observe being punished. Despite extensive use of punitive systems, including incarceration, research indicates that punishment alone has very limited effectiveness in reducing long-term criminal behavior. Recidivism rates for people being imprisoned remain very high, suggesting that punishment does not reliably produce lasting behavioral change (National Research Council, 2014).<\/p>\n

            Because most of us are stuck in the vertical paradigm of Power-Over, it\u2019s often believed that if a punishment didn\u2019t work, it was just not strong enough. Somehow, in our efforts to teach people that killing is wrong, people have even ardently advocated for the death penalty as a tool to accomplish that goal. A substantial body of research has consistently found that not even the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder. Reviews conducted by organizations such as the National Research Council (2012) have concluded that existing studies provide no credible evidence that capital punishment reduces homicide rates.<\/p>\n

            Obviously, if someone is a proven threat to commit murder or some other grave crime that impacts the community, the community needs to be protected from them. But this is most reasonably provided by incarceration for life if necessary. One of the most persistent misconceptions about punishment, particularly the death penalty, is that it is more cost-effective than long-term incarceration. In reality, the opposite is true. Research consistently shows that capital punishment is significantly more expensive than life imprisonment, with estimates indicating that death penalty cases cost between 2.5 and 5 times more than cases resulting in life without parole (Death Penalty Information Center, 2025). Not only does capital punishment fail to demonstrate a clear deterrent effect, but it also requires substantially greater public resources than alternative approaches.<\/p>\n

            Predictable Consequences and Side-Effects<\/h3>\n

            Beyond its limited effectiveness, punishment often produces unintended negative outcomes, particularly in children. When children are punished, their immediate response is frequently emotional rather than reflective. Feelings such as anger, fear, shame, or resentment can become the primary focus of attention, reducing the likelihood that the child will understand or internalize the intended lesson (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).<\/p>\n

            Research has identified several common responses children may have to punishment, including avoidance of the punishing adult, increased secrecy or attempts to avoid detection, retaliation or aggression, reduced self-esteem, and compliance driven by fear rather than understanding. These responses can interfere with the development of internal regulation and responsibility.<\/p>\n

            One of the most concerning forms of punishment is corporal punishment. Despite growing awareness of its risks, it remains widely used. In the United States, studies indicate that a majority of adults report having been physically punished as children, and a significant proportion of parents continue to use spanking as a disciplinary strategy (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).<\/p>\n

            A large meta-analysis of decades of research found that corporal punishment is associated with increased aggression, antisocial behavior, mental health problems, and damaged parent\u2013child relationships, while showing no evidence of long-term positive outcomes (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). In some cases, physical punishment can escalate into abuse, with serious and lasting consequences.<\/p>\n

            Rewards Can Be Just as Ineffective and Damaging as Punishment<\/h3>\n

            If punishment represents one side of the traditional \u201cpower over\u201d model, rewards represent the other. While rewards are often viewed as positive and harmless, a growing body of research suggests that they share many of the same limitations as punishment and may also undermine important aspects of development.<\/p>\n

            Rewards operate by reinforcing behavior through external incentives such as praise, stickers, privileges, or tangible items. Like punishment, they rely on external control rather than internal motivation. Over time, this can lead individuals to become dependent on rewards rather than developing a genuine understanding of or commitment to the behavior itself.<\/p>\n

            Research in motivation theory has shown that external rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, the natural desire to engage in an activity for its own sake (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). When children come to expect rewards for behaviors they might otherwise do willingly, their internal motivation can decrease. They may begin to ask, \u201cWhat do I get?\u201d rather than \u201cIs this the right thing to do?\u201d<\/p>\n

            Alfie Kohn (1999) has been particularly influential in critiquing the use of rewards in education and parenting. He summarized hundreds of research studies on rewards in his book, Punished by Rewards<\/em><\/strong> (1993).<\/em><\/p>\n

            \n
            \n

            Key Takeaways<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

            \n

            Here are the important points from that book that can help us look more critically at what most of us have absorbed unconsciously from our culture and upbringing.<\/p>\n

              \n
            • The Problem with Rewards<\/strong>\n
                \n
              • Rewards don\u2019t teach why a behavior is valuable; they just train children to \u201cget the prize.\u201d<\/li>\n
              • Repeated use of rewards can make people less interested in the task itself.<\/li>\n
              • Rewards often reduce creativity, risk-taking, and deep thinking.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
              • Rewards = Control<\/strong>\n
                  \n
                • Rewards are often used to manipulate behavior (\u201cIf you do X, you\u2019ll get Y\u201d).<\/li>\n
                • This undermines autonomy and creates compliance, not cooperation or character.<\/li>\n
                • Motivation and internal interest fade.<\/li>\n
                • The value of the reward has to increase to obtain the same level of compliance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                • Praise as a Form of Reward is Just as Bad<\/strong>\n
                    \n
                  • General praise (\u201cGood job!\u201d) is a verbal reward that can become a subtle form of control.<\/li>\n
                  • Children may become dependent on external validation rather than developing self-assessment skills.<\/li>\n
                  • Praise can inhibit exploration and experimentation; people do not want to try new things that may not earn the same praise.<\/li>\n
                  • It can decrease trust of the person giving the praise.<\/li>\n
                  • Any short-term gain or satisfaction is outweighed by long-term consequences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

                    Similarly, Marshall Rosenberg (2003) characterized both punishment and reward as forms of \u201cviolent\u201d communication, not in a physical sense, but in the way they attempt to control behavior through external means rather than supporting autonomy and mutual respect. From this perspective, rewards can be seen as a form of manipulation, encouraging behavior for the sake of approval rather than genuine connection or understanding.<\/p>\n

                    As with punishment, there may be limited situations in which reinforcement strategies can be useful, particularly in structured interventions for children with specific developmental needs. However, when used as a primary approach to guidance, rewards can undermine all of the fundamental goals we have for children. We will explain and discuss the very important differences between encouragement<\/strong> and praise in the next chapter.<\/p>\n

                    \n

                    References<\/h2>\n
                      \n
                    1. Bloch, M. (1961). Feudal society (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.<\/li>\n
                    2. Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press.<\/li>\n
                    3. Death Penalty Information Center. (2025). Costs. https:\/\/deathpenaltyinfo.org\/policy-issues\/policy\/costs<\/li>\n
                    4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The \u201cwhat\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227\u2013268.<\/li>\n
                    5. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.<\/li>\n
                    6. Gershoff, E.T. and Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43),\u00a030(4), 453\u2013469. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/fam0000191<\/li>\n
                    7. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards. The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin and Company<\/li>\n
                    8. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) position statement. NAEYC.<\/li>\n
                    9. National Research Council. (2012).\u00a0Deterrence and the death penalty. The National Academies Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17226\/13363<\/li>\n
                    10. National Research Council. 2014.\u00a0The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.<\/li>\n
                    11. Rawson, B. (1999). The family in ancient Rome: New perspectives. Cornell University Press.<\/li>\n
                    12. Rosenberg, M. B. (2003).\u00a0Nonviolent communication: A language of life\u00a0(2nd ed.). PuddleDancer Press<\/li>\n
                    13. Van De Mieroop, M. (2007). A history of the ancient Near East ca. 3000\u2013323 BC (2nd ed.). Blackwell.<\/li>\n
                    14. Yao, X. (2000). An introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge University Press.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"Historical Approaches","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["ken-breeding"],"pb_section_license":"cc-by-nc"},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[61],"license":[56],"class_list":["post-330","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless","contributor-ken-breeding","license-cc-by-nc"],"part":328,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/330\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":589,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/330\/revisions\/589"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/328"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/330\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=330"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=330"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}