As reported by Good.is, a new study published in Pyschological Science has found that young kids who were bribed with a physical reward (in this case, a sticker) were more likely eat vegetables they didn’t like, even three months after the study, than kids who’d been lavishly praised for eating hated vegetables or those who’d been simply asked to try them.
In a write-up of the study by the Boston Globe, a professor who has studied motivational techniques agrees that tangible rewards are a good idea in this context and suggests letting your kid choose the prize he or she wants for eating vegetables, like “a few selections from the LEGO catalogue.”
my new favorite stock photo 
While I can’t access the full study online, I’ll take the researchers at their word that a sticker led to more veggie-eating. Nonetheless, I generally dislike the idea of “bribing” kids for anything, both for philosophical reasons and because, in my experience as a parent, bribery often backfires. Back when my daughter was a toddler, I used tangible rewards now and then to curb or promote various behaviors, and I will never forget the day when she accomplished some little toddler task for the first time and instead of feeling inherently proud of herself, she turned to me and asked, “What do I get for it?”
That was the last day rewards of that sort were used in the TLT household.
I also dislike the message bribery might send in this context — i.e., this food is so distasteful that we have to give you something to induce you to eat it. In other words, kids are clued into the fact that no one is offering a sticker to get them to eat ice cream. I would rather have my kids approach vegetables slowly and cautiously (in the case of my son, “glacially” might be a better descriptor) and come to enjoy them on their own merits, rather than gagging them down to get a promised toy, with no guarantee that, like the kids in this study, they will continue to eat them after the reward is granted.
With all that said, though, I could see the scenario where the inducement of a tangible reward encourages a kid to try a new flavor, and then, lo and behold, he realizes he likes the flavor and continues to eat the food.
What do you think about bribery in this context? Clever parenting strategy or a bad idea? Take my reader poll and I’ll announce the results in this Friday’s Buffet.
Get Your Lunch Delivered and never miss another Lunch Tray post! Just “Like” TLT’s Facebook page or “Follow” on Twitter and you’ll also get bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, discussion with other readers AND you’ll be showing TLT some love. ♥♥♥ So what are you waiting for?
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
When my son was 4, I told him he would have to eat a fruit or vegetable each day he wanted to watch TV that summer. He decided right then and there that he would do without. Hurt me more than it hurt him, but he stuck to his guns, and so did I! Maybe I’ll try it with video games now that he’s 10. I think it would work this time (he is still vehemently anti-fruit/veggie).
MC – This is a good example of why I think bribery is bad in this context. Your son dug in his heels and ate NO produce for a summer! But it sounds like you’re willing to try it again — let us know what happens. And thanks for commenting here!
The power of video games over a 10-year old boy is formidable. If bribery ever had a chance, this is it. But I do actually agree that it is a bad idea.
I still haven’t found a strategy that works and I think I’ve tried everything.
We grow veggies and herbs in our yard, I joined a co-op, our son helps us cook, he chops veggies and helps his dad grill meat and veggies. He loves cooking shows, loves Jamie Oliver. He’s gone to a couple of camps at Young Chef’s Academy (loved making everything, wouldn’t taste anything with fruit or veg in it). I’ve left him completely alone about the veggie thing for at least the last 2 years (he will go to bed at 6 without food when given a choice between bed and a bit of vegetable). All this and he will NOT try anything suspiciously veggie-esque. The one exception is spaghetti/pizza, lightly sauced.
And that is why I may be willing to try video game bribery.
OMG, MC -you and I are living the same life. Don’t know if you saw this post from last week: “‘Picky Eaters’: Cutting Yourself Some Slack.” It’s about exactly that phenomenon – doing everything “right” like gardening and cooking, to no avail. If you haven’t read it, would love to get your thoughts.
I don’t have any kids, but philosophically I think anything more than an occasion strategic “bribe” can reinforce a behavior I don’t agree with. It also doesn’t promote intrinsic reward or critical thinking. Your own personal experience is the perfect example.
I don’t bribe my 6 year old if he does eat, but if he’s not eating his dinner then he has to get in tub and start getting ready for bed. I don’t make him finish his plate, but reasonable try to eat at least half of all the food. And I will not make anything else for him, either. He gets the same meal we do. Most nights he eats pretty good. He has chosen to go to bed hungry. I’m mean like that.
I have the world’s pickest eater, and I have one very adventerous eater. I also teach cooking classes to kids ages 8-13. I have found that if you do not place pressure on the kids to eat it, but let them fix it. In one cooking class we made Falafel, ground chick peas and such…they loved them. We also made a dish from Jamie Oliver’s cooking revalution cookbook- a green curry over beef. Every one of the kids tried it. Get them involved and if they don’t want to eat it, don’t make a big deal about it. By the end of the cooking class session I had every kid eating things they had never tried, asking for seconds. Don’t trick, invite…..(forgive me for misspells, I can’t function with out spell check)
if you look at stickers in isolation then they would just be a bribe. however, getting kids to eat things they don’t want to eat is never just one practice or technique. if you don’t supplement lavish praise or physical rewards with good schooling on what veggies do for the body, making them available regularly, getting your kids involved in cooking/shopping/prep, and other positive food-people relationship techniques then the bribe is hollow.
like learning to read where some kids take on easily, others need more assistance, so is learning to eat the variety of nutrients our body needs for wellness and optimal function. you can’t expect the same process to work with every kid, as bettina has pointed out with her super-taster son.
many kids who are not super-tasters still refuse veggies. not because they are viscerally offensive to the tongue, but because they think they are icky, or just haven’t learned to eat anything that isn’t a “favorite” food. in those cases, kids should be given opportunities to sample new food items and if rewards like stickers do the trick, then great. you do what works when you’re talking about health. going your whole life never learning to eat a vegetable will probably eventually cause harm. maybe not during childhood years, but as toxins build in our bodies, if they are removed or destroyed by antioxidants, they will cause damage to our organs and cells.
vegetables are great detoxifiers and we live in a toxic world. i would not want any child hindered from learning to consume them, even if they weren’t ever their favorite just because a little sticker reward was never used on principal.
i firmly believe that when you teach a child exactly what function veggies (and each necessary nutrient) plays in their body, they will learn to tolerate some of the items they generally refuse, because universally kids (at least grade school kids) want to be healthy, smart, well functioning people.
even when you make food relevant kids, some are still reluctant. food literacy might be challenging, but it is worth getting it right for the sake of your child’s health.
legos though? not sure about that one. not for the average child. if you had a really reluctant eater who was already having health issues (like constipation, asthma, allergies, chronic infections, diarrhea, ADD/ADHD, etc) i would say that the child’s health is worth the bribe.
good dialog, thanks for sharing.
back to literacy – my kid’s school keeps track of how many books they read together as a class. When they reach a milestone (300 books) they have a party. This is a bribe, to get kids to sit quiet and listen to books. fine by me. kids learn language with books. they are an essential part of literacy. if teachers need gimmicks like tracking how many books are read and parties to keep kids engaged with books, that works. how would stickers for tasting food be different?
my kids don’t need the book party. they love to read and would read regardless of a party or book counting contest. but i suspect the contest helps some kids rally about reading regularly. if the teachers didn’t need it as a tool, for some kids, they wouldn’t use it.
i think we have a nation of veggiephobes. and most of them aren’t supertasters. they are just kids who prefer goldfish and graham crackers. is it really better to stick to reward principals than see a much larger % of the youngest generation eating food that is like medicine for the body?
In my work with Veggiecation, I have partnered with the NY Coalition for Healthy School Food. We employ stickers, coloring pages and games to encourage students to try new veggies and beans. We pair these with educational posters about the health benefits of these foods. Over and over again we have had great success in getting kids to try everything from kidney beans to collard greens. The promise of a reward gets the nutritious food in their mouths, then they realize it tastes good. To me that is a success.
Lisa (and also Jenna): For some reason stickers, games, etc. seem OK to me when part of an entire curriculum like yours, Lisa, or as part of the constant instruction you give your kids, Jenna. But when it’s “Go pick out a Lego toy for eating your vegetables all week”, I get off the bribery boat. Do you think that’s a false distinction?
bettina, i tend to agree, that if stickers are the only intervention, and the education piece, or the “why” piece is completely lacking, then the intervention may do more harm than good. although many studies have shown that positive consequences (like stickers) work much more effectively than negative consequences like removing privileges.
and i would agree that for a kid that didn’t either have major health problems because of poor diet, someone who was really suffering and needed relief that legos would be a bit much. the consequence/reward needs to fit the accomplishment. if the accomplishment warrants a bigger reward, go for it.
adults get rewards too. we get a paycheck when we do our work. we get a promotion when we go the extra mile. when we do kind things for people, people are willing to do kind things for us. rewards are part of our culture and humanity. why remove them from kids when they are such great incentives.
i think it’s ok to give monetary/tangible rewards for kids when they demonstrate building necessary life skills like literacy, getting exercise and eating healthy. most kids can learn those skills without huge rewards like legos, some kids might be motivated by them.
in other words, the reward should match the need. not all kids are motivated by the same things, and not all kids need the same type of payoff for effort. it’s our job as parents to know our kids, what works and what doesn’t. if we try something that doesn’t work (like removing rights to watch tv) we should try something else. just because it was ineffective for one kid doesn’t mean it’s ineffective for all kids.
what would you do if your child suddenly refused to go to bed on time, or gave up doing homework. you’d go through a trial and error process until you found something that worked.
No. I think it is a necessary distinction to make. The combination of education, positive peer-pressure and rewards send a clear message and make a memorable impact. The lego bribe doesn’t really accomplish that.