When our kids were toddlers and youngsters, we had a rule that a whiny kid would not get what they asked for. We eventually developed a custom where if a kid asked for something in a whiny manner, we would dramatically intone “If you whine, you get…” and the kid would reply “NOTHING!” Then they would ask for whatever-it-was in a pleasant manner, and often get it. Kids often don’t realize that they’re whining, so this was a way of helping them to notice. And by often giving them the thing when they asked nicely, instead of holding the whining against them, we encouraged self-correction.
Re: the airplane proposal, I would worry that people are too panicked in an evacuation to think through the scenario rationally, and would still grab their stuff out of instinct, possibly even slowing down evacuation by trying to then re-stow it. It's also not a repeat game in that a single person is very unlikely to evacuate an airplane multiple times, so people wouldn't be able to learn from their mistake (unlike the examples in your post with children). It's a great idea for rational actors, but I don't think people are rational actors in an evacuation. It still might be worth experimenting with the idea though to see if it works.
My dog often takes various things lying around within their reach (socks, napkins, once a passport) and runs away, usually destroying the object to some degree. I think it started with food items that were left around and somehow evolved into a broader habit. Ideally, this behavior would be disincentivized somehow until they stopped completely, but over time I have found the best way to get them to give up the item is by trading a treat for it. This post made me realize that I'm basically training them to start this keep-away game.
Another thing that I hadn't realized until writing this comment is the fact that, given sometimes they take stuff that I find practically worthless (in which case they don't get a treat) and sometimes they take stuff that is really important (in which case I run to get a high-value treat), I am implementing an intermittent reinforcement scheme.
I wish I could effectively communicate to my dog that they would get a treat at a predetermined time if and only if they refrained from doing this, but I don't suppose they'd be able to make the connection unless I implemented a really attention-demanding, high-frequency scheme. Curse our lack of shared language.
It's a holiday. The cousins are over, and the kids are having a great time. Unfortunately, that includes rampaging through the kitchen. We're trying to cook, so there's a "no cutting through the kitchen" rule. Imagine enforcement looks like:
This doesn't work! The kid got what they wanted out of this interaction, and isn't going to change their behavior. Instead, I need to make it be not worth their while:
Other examples:
Sneak candy, spit it out and forfeit dessert.
Use sibling's tablet time, lose your own.
Interrupt, be ignored.
The general principle is that if you want to limit behavior the combination of the gains from rule-breaking and penalty from punishment need to put the kid in a worse position than if they'd never broken the rule.
This isn't just a parenting thing: it's common to say that "crime should not pay", and many legal systems prohibit unjust enrichment. One place I'd like to see this implemented is airplane evacuation. If the safety announcements included "In the event of an emergency evacuation, any carry-on luggage you bring will be confiscated and destroyed. You will also be fined." we would have more JAL 516 (379 occupants, zero deaths) and less Aeroflot 1492 or Emirates 521.
Comment via: facebook, mastodon, bluesky