When we went to school, and certainly when our parents and grandparents did, the dominant theory in psychology was that children learn to behave through rewards and consequences. This approach came from a movement known as behaviourism, which was enormously influential throughout the 20th century.
The theory goes something like this: reward the behaviour you want more of, and punish or ignore the behaviour you want less of. This process, known as conditioning, has its roots in the scientific study of animal behaviour. Sounds simple, right? But human beings, especially young children, are not rats in a maze. From its inception, behaviourism was critiqued for oversimplifying the complexity of human behaviour. When we ask, “Why does my child behave the way they do?”, behaviourism gives us one answer: “Because of rewards and consequences.”
That answer shaped much of modern education, from positive reinforcement systems like sticker charts and gold stars to token economies and behaviour peg charts. B.F. Skinner, one of the most famous behaviourists, once said, “Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything.” (Just quietly, I don’t think Skinner had the pleasure of meeting the spirited Jacobs’, Josies’, Jordans’, and Jaxons-with-an-x I’ve met in my work - the kind of children who’d gladly tell him where to stick his sticker chart. And honestly, I adore them for it.) But shape he did, using token reinforcement systems that are still widely used today in institutions like schools and prisons, where it remains accepted practice to manipulate and control human behaviour.
But here’s the thing: these systems almost always come at the expense of a child’s wellbeing. Think back to your own childhood. Were you ever manipulated by a reward, an award, or a sticker? Missed out on one? Felt ashamed, excluded, or humiliated because you didn’t earn one? If so, you’re not alone.
Author and education critic Alfie Kohn (1993) coined the phrase “punished by rewards,” arguing that when we use rewards to manipulate behaviour, we undermine children’s intrinsic motivation, damage relationships, and diminish their capacity for moral reasoning. As he writes;
“Behind the practice of presenting a colourful dinosaur sticker to a first grader who stays silent on command is a theory that embodies distinct assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the possibility of choice, and what it means to be a human being.”
So what’s the alternative?
Well, it depends on the decade in which you ask the question. As early as the 1940s, other voices were already questioning the limits of behaviourism. Abraham Maslow proposed that humans are not motivated by external rewards and punishments, but by internal drives, a hierarchy of needs that culminates in our desire to grow, thrive, and self-actualise.
Fast forward to today, and the dominant theory of human motivation is Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to SDT, people are intrinsically motivated to meet three core psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are met, we thrive. When they’re blocked, we struggle.
In this view (and in this decade) the question “Why does my child behave the way they do?” has a very different answer than in the past: “Because the behaviour they are using is their best attempt to meet a basic human need, given their current ability, development, knowledge, and skills.” And that’s exactly the starting point that your child’s educators are working from.
Children don’t act out for no reason. They are doing the best they can to get their needs met with the skills and resources they currently have. Our job as adults is to help them build those skills - not to manipulate their behaviour with carrots and sticks.
Dr Louise Porter, a leading advocate for guidance-based approaches, also emphasises that all behaviour is driven by underlying needs (not by moral failings or deliberate defiance). In her view, children do not misbehave; they behave to meet their needs in the best way they currently know how.
Porter strongly critiques approaches that focus on enforcing compliance, especially those that rely on punishments or rewards. She argues that these methods don’t teach children to make thoughtful, ethical choices. Instead, they train children to follow rules out of fear or to gain approval, undermining both their autonomy and their moral development (Porter, 2014).
In her acclaimed text ‘Young Children’s Behaviour’, guidance is positioned as fundamentally different from control. While control attempts to make children behave through external pressure, guidance seeks to teach children how to behave by supporting their development. This includes building emotional literacy, strengthening relationships, and helping children learn more constructive ways to meet their needs. Porter explains that children's behaviour, even when adults deem it disruptive or inappropriate, is the child’s way of trying to meet their needs. If we respond with punishment or reward, we teach them to hide their needs rather than learn how to meet them appropriately (Porter, 2014).
This deepens our understanding: behaviour is not something to suppress or control, but something to interpret with curiosity and compassion.
At Phoenix Support, we use a framework called The Phoenix Cups® to help educators understand, interpret, and respond to behaviour. Each Cup represents a basic human life need. Imagine you could see your child's needs (and your own, for that matter), it would look like they’re carrying around five Cups: a Safety Cup, Connection Cup, Freedom Cup, Mastery Cup, and a Fun Cup. When your child’s Cups are full (needs are met), they flourish.
When a Cup is running low (a need is unmet), your child might experience an unpleasant feeling. How they make sense of that feeling, how they come to experience it as an emotion, depends on many factors, including context, language, and past experience (Feldman Barrett, 2017). In these moments, you might see your child use a behaviour you don’t like, not because they’re being difficult, but because they haven’t yet learned a more helpful way to express what they’re feeling or get their needs met.
Instead of using rewards or consequences to manage children, your educators are working proactively. They are asking: What does this child need? Which of their Cups might be empty? How can we support them to build the skills to fill it?
This is what we call helping children develop their Skill to Fill™ as well as nurturing their Will to Fill™ - that intrinsic motivation to meet their own needs in healthy, sustainable ways.
For example, a child who frequently seeks attention might have an empty Connection Cup. Rather than labelling this as ‘attention seeking’, a term often used disapprovingly, educators using the Phoenix Cups framework would reframe it as ‘connection seeking.’ This shift in language reflects a deeper shift in mindset: from managing behaviour to fostering wellbeing.
Instead of rewarding only the behaviours we deem acceptable, sometimes using strategies like “catch them being good” (a behaviourist strategy that I discuss in this article on Connection Seeking) and ignoring the rest, educators grounded in the Phoenix Cups approach look for authentic opportunities to connect. They aim to build respectful, trusting relationships with the child, while also supporting them to develop more skilled ways to meet their need for connection.
This approach is not only more respectful - it’s more effective. It supports long-term wellbeing, not just short-term compliance. It teaches children to be thoughtful members of a community, not just obedient rule-followers. This approach is how we raise thoughtful, capable humans, not just compliant and obedient ones.
And yes, it works.
We’ve seen children thrive under this approach. Children who once acted out or shut down begin to feel seen, heard, and safe. Their needs are understood and met in developmentally appropriate ways. They are given agency, not ultimatums. Because when we teach with respect, children rise to it.
So next time you wonder why your child’s educators aren’t using rewards, consider this:
They’re not choosing the easy way. They’re choosing the effective, ethical, evidence-based way. They’re choosing a way that respects your child as a whole human being with real needs and real potential.
They’re choosing to teach, not to train.
Because teaching children is not a behaviour program – it’s a relationship.
Author: Sandi Phoenix is the managing director at Phoenix Support for Educators
References
Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. (2003, November 5). The folly of merit pay. Education Week. https://www.alfiekohn.org/article/folly-merit-pay/
Phoenix, S., & Phoenix, C. (2019). The Phoenix cups: A Cup Filling Story . Wellington Point: Phoenix Support Publishing.
Phoenix, S. (2021). Educator Toolkit for Behaviour. Wellington Point, Queensland: Phoenix Support Publishing.
Phoenix, S. (2022). From Behaviour 'Management' to Fostering Wellbeing - a Way Forward. Australian Childcare Alliance Queensland: Early Edition , (Spring - 2021), 23.
Porter, L. (2014). Young children’s behaviour: Practical approaches for caregivers and teachers (4th ed.). Elsevier.
Porter, L. (n.d.). Guiding children’s behaviour. Retrieved from https://www.louiseporter.com.au/_admin/resources/motivatingchildrenweb.pdf
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68