Skinner's Behavioral Theory in Early Childhood Interaction

Interaction Transcript

The following table documents a naturalistic interaction between the FPMHNP student and a child (age 3 years, 11 months), recorded on June 11, 2023, at the child's home in the living room.

Student verbal and nonverbal communication: "Good morning — what's wrong?" The student bends down next to the child on the couch to make eye contact, remaining in a kneeling position while awaiting a response. "What blanket was it?" "Can we call the company and see if they have it? Maybe I can get you another one?" The student maintains eye contact with the child, then looks toward the child's mother. "That's where she gets it from." The student pulls out a phone, opens the Amazon app, and completes a purchase.

Child verbal and nonverbal communication: No answer at first. The child is sitting on the couch next to her mother with her head resting on her mother's lap. She then says, "I lost my blanket at the party." She remains lying down and does not make eye contact. "It's the pink one that I always have. Someone took it."

The child's mother responds: "No one took it. You left it inside the bounce house." The child replies: "Mommy did, and they said it's not there." The mother says: "She needs to be more careful with her stuff. It shouldn't have been outside anyway." The child counters: "But if I didn't bring it, my baby would have been cold. You only bought one dress." The mother replies: "Stop now. Your dolls have plenty of dresses. You lost it, and that's it. You have 10 other blankets." The child says: "It was my only Cinderella blanket."

The child is noticeably sad. She is rubbing her hands along her mother's legs and continues to look down, making no eye contact.

Student Reflection

When the student asks, "From where — Amazon?" the child looks up and becomes visibly excited, sitting upright. The student and the child's mother laugh. The mother says, "She's too much." The child then walks over to the student and looks over the student's shoulder as the app is searched for a new blanket. She grabs the phone and yells, "This one!" She takes the phone and runs to her mother for approval.

The mother looks at the blanket and states: "I'm not buying it. If she wants to buy it, she can — but if you lose it again, I'm not letting anyone buy it back." The child does not answer. She runs back to the student and hands over the phone.

Applying Skinner's Behavioral Reinforcement Theory

The child blames others for her lost items and expects that anything she loses — in this case, her blanket — will be replaced immediately. Her mother, on the other hand, believes the child is careless and that a lost item should not be replaced. Unless the child's behavior and her mother's perspective are shaped in some way, their opposing points of view will continue to be a source of misunderstanding and conflict.

In retrospect, purchasing the blanket was a mistake. It rewarded negative behavior at the very moment the child's mother had been consistently emphasizing that the child does not take care of her belongings. The child even blamed her mother for losing the blanket. I believe I overstepped my boundaries. Once the child was happy, I was unsure how to proceed. In hindsight, I should have consulted the mother privately before acting. There would also be a need to explain to the mother how behavioral reinforcement theory works and how it can be applied constructively at home.

One of the theories most successful in explaining how behaviors are shaped is B.F. Skinner's behavioral reinforcement theory. In basic terms, this theory holds that consequences shape future behavior (Cohen and Waite-Stupiansky, 2017). The theory provides several tools for modifying behavior, including positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment.

In the present scenario, the child lost her blanket at a party. Her mother was adamant that the child needed to take greater responsibility for her belongings. By purchasing a new blanket, the student inadvertently rewarded the very behavior the mother was trying to discourage. The goal should have been to decrease the frequency of the undesirable behavior — specifically, the child's tendency to be careless with her possessions. This scenario reflects a broader principle within operant conditioning: that unintended rewards can strengthen behaviors we wish to extinguish.

Conclusion and Proposed Intervention

To ensure that the child takes greater care of her belongings, it would have been more effective to apply punishment rather than immediate replacement. In essence, "like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an unpleasant stimulus or by removing a potentially rewarding stimulus" (Lattal and Chase, 2013, p. 197). In the child's case, the preferred approach would be to apply an undesirable consequence for the loss of any item — the Cinderella blanket in the present scenario.