There is a moment most of us recognise. The one where you are running late, the school bag is not packed, the youngest has located a marker and a wall and you say, very calmly, that whoever puts on shoes in the next thirty seconds gets the chocolate biscuit after lunch.
It works. It almost always works. And then, somewhere around the school gate, you feel something that is not quite guilt and not quite victory. A small unease that you have just made another deposit in an account you do not entirely understand.
This is the bribery question and the conversation about it has tended to move in two directions and stop. The therapists tell us that bribery is bad and rewards are fine, and offer a careful distinction between the two. The mothers tell us they are exhausted and it works. Both are true. Neither is the whole story.
The research, for what it is worth, is less clean than either side would have it.
The classic study is Lepper and Greene's overjustification effect from 1973. Children who were rewarded for an activity they already enjoyed went on to lose interest in that activity once the rewards stopped. The intrinsic motivation, the thing that made the activity feel worth doing for its own sake, was crowded out by the extrinsic one. Forty years of subsequent research has confirmed and complicated the finding. Rewards for behaviours children dislike, like tidying up, brushing teeth, sitting still in a car seat, are generally fine. Rewards for behaviours they would have done anyway, or for outcomes that ought to be intrinsically motivating, like learning, are where the picture gets murky.
So. Spelling lists. Music practice. Reading. The places where most parents reach for the bribe are, on the science, the places where the bribe does the most quiet damage.
But here is what the science does not capture. The mother running the spelling test on a Wednesday night is not making a long-range developmental decision. She is trying to get through the next forty minutes without losing her temper. The promise of a screen, a treat, a trip to the park, is the difference between a calm evening and an unravelling one. The bribe is not really about the spelling. It is about the parent's nervous system.
Which is the actual question underneath all of this. Not is bribery bad. The real question is: what are we asking our children to perform, and what are we paying them with, when we cannot meet the moment any other way?
There are mothers in our circle whose children are extraordinary. Some of them play instruments at a level that takes the breath away. Some of them read at three. Some of them swim, dance, debate. Behind a meaningful number of these children is a system of incentives that has been quietly running since they were small. The praise was specific. The rewards were carefully tiered. The compliance arrived. The discipline followed.
There is a second group of children, also extraordinary, also high-achieving, where the parents have refused the system. These are children who have been asked, from very young, what they actually want to be doing. Whose parents have absorbed the cost of the slower path. Who have had to sit through the boredom that comes before mastery without it being papered over with treats. Their children look different. Not better, necessarily. Different.
The honest position, if we are willing to sit with it, is that both kinds of mothers love their children equally and are making different bets. One bet says: build the discipline now and the meaning will come later. The other bet says: protect the meaning and the discipline will follow.
We do not yet know which bet wins.
What we do know is that compliance is not the same as character. A child who has been taught to perform good behaviour for a reward is learning a transactional model of effort. A child who has been taught that effort is its own conversation is learning something else. Whether the second child can compete with the first in a school system that runs almost entirely on extrinsic rewards is an open question. Most parents are too tired to ask it out loud.
So the answer to the question should you bribe your child is probably: yes, sometimes, knowingly. With a clear sense of what the bribe is for. With an awareness that the small unease you feel at the school gate is information, not weakness. The unease is your nervous system telling you that you have made a trade, and you would like to know, eventually, what it cost.
We would like to hear yours.
0 comments