Avoid "If-Then" Rewards

During a workshop for our local child care providers, Alexis Robin Nourish Life & Business Coach recommended the book "Drive" by Daniel Pinks. While Pink's book is directed more toward business managers, the underlying theme is about human motivation and is a great read for any parent or adult who works with children. 
In his book, Pink shares with readers a study conducted in 1973 by Lepper, Greene & Nisbett. The researchers went into a preschool classroom and identified the children who naturally chose art and drawing when it was free period. 

They divided these children into 3 groups. 

• The first group had an "expected reward". They were promised a "Good Player" certificate with a blue ribbon for completing a drawing.
• The second group was given a certificate spontaneously after completing a drawing and they weren't expecting the reward.
• The third group was never given an award.

Two weeks later the researchers returned. When given free time, the kids in group 2 and 3 still chose art equally but those in group 1 chose significantly less than at the start of the study.

Pink explains that "if-then" rewards require people to forfeit some of their autonomy (think of this as safe power) and drains their enjoyment of the activity.

Relating this to child development....avoid "if-then" rewards. If you eat all of your dinner you get dessert. If you clean your room you can watch a movie.  If you help me with the dishes we can go to the park.....

Instead, catch children being good. Notice good behavior as close as possible after the fact with genuine and specific acknowledgement. If a spontaneous reward follows, that works too! "Thank you for helping me clean the kitchen. With your help we finished faster. Now we have extra time to go to the park."

Should You Pay Your Child for Chores?

In 2003 Russian economist Anton Suvorov developed the "principal agent theory".
Principals in this theory are the people who are trying to convince the agent to do something. Since we are talking about allowance in this case, the parent is the principal and the child is the agent.

Let's create a scenario where the parent wants the child to take the garbage. They create an allowance amount for their child, $5 a week to take out the garbage.

• According the the "principal-agent theory" offering your child money to take out the trash implies it is an undesirable task that no one would do without being compensated for. 
• And according to this theory, your child may agree to take out the trash for the $5 but will never again take out the trash for anything less than $5. 
• Furthermore, the influence of the allowance tends to wear off over time. Your child may become more and more reluctant to take out the trash as time goes on, requiring more prodding on your part. They may even negotiate a higher rate when they realize the leverage they have- and you might readily agree, hoping it will extinguish the complaining and ignite quicker action! 
• Or they may decide they don't need or want the money and forfeit the task.

Keeping in mind the "principal agent theory" you may decide it is easier to have your children complete chores with no monetary compensation. Household chores can instead be viewed as something each member of the family does to contribute to the health and well-being of the family. Completing chores together can help you and your children feel more connected since conversations may flow more easily when you are occupied side by side with a similar task and are working together as a team.

Children still need to learn how to manage money. Giving them a set allowance, unrelated to the completion of chores, along with some coaching about spending and saving can help them develop healthy money habits they will need sooner than you think!