First-Then Strategies: A Closer Look

"Positive" behavioral methods should genuinely offer choices rather than merely rephrasing traditional tactics. The "first-then" approach, for instance, is often misrepresented as a method for promoting compliance. Originally, this strategy was designed to assist individuals with transitions and unexpected changes by clearly outlining the short-term plan. For instance, it might state, "First, we will have dinner, then we will go to soccer practice."

However, behaviorists have repurposed this thoughtful concept into a tool for manipulation and coercion. Rather than utilizing "first-then" as a helpful reminder or schedule, it has been transformed into a means of leveraging threats and bribes. This tactic creates a scenario where one is motivated to engage in an undesirable task with the promise of a more favorable outcome, all while implying that failure to comply will result in losing that desired outcome.

This video titled "Behaviorism" explores the historical context and implications of behaviorist theories.

The Misinterpretation of Compliance

The essence of the "first-then" strategy often boils down to a coercive message: "You must complete this task that you dislike before you can enjoy what you prefer." This is fundamentally akin to saying, "If you refuse to comply, you will miss out on the enjoyable activity."

Withholding something desirable is classified as "negative punishment," where "negative" signifies the absence of a reward rather than a qualitative judgment. For example, saying, "Complete your schoolwork first, and then you can play with your toys," is a clear attempt to reduce resistance to tasks by withholding access to a preferred activity.

While the first-then technique can serve as a useful informational tool for preparing someone for changes or transitions, its frequent misuse for coercive purposes undermines its potential benefits. When applied respectfully and informatively, it can serve as a helpful guide, devoid of manipulation.

Implications of Coercion

The question arises, "Why is this problematic?" When we compel someone—especially a child—to comply by threatening them with the loss of something they desire, we fail to:

• Strengthen relationships
• Teach essential skills
• Understand their resistance
• Respect their independence
• Encourage problem-solving and decision-making

While we might achieve compliance through coercion, it necessitates a continual threat of loss rather than fostering a genuine connection and cooperation.

In compliance-based dynamics, the underlying message is one of authority: "Obey because I say so." Such situations arise when one party holds power over another, leading to fear-driven compliance. Conversely, cooperation is cultivated in environments built on trust and mutual respect, where individuals are motivated to collaborate for shared success.

Cooperation emerges when individuals value their relationships and are committed to working together, highlighting the importance of supportive interactions over mere compliance.