Physical punishment

Post Reply New Topic

Several people here have expressed strong opinions on this topic. I thought I'd outline some of my perspectives on physical punishment.

The basic reasons that physical punishment should not be used are:

1) It feels wrong - most parents do not enjoy hitting their children, they just believe that it is necessary. I don't believe there is a debate to be had if people are hitting children, for the pleasure of it (I think most people agree that that is unequivocally wrong).
2) It is less effective than reinforcement based approaches (I'll go into detail on this).
3) It is ineffective in most situations - there is empirical evidence, as well as solid theoretical reasons for this. I'll go into it in some detail.
4) It is not more effective than milder forms of punishment - punishment can be used to some effect in certain specific situations. In those situations, physical punishment is not more effective than milder forms of punishment such as time-out or response cost (taking away access to preferred items for short periods of time).
5) It potentially damages family relationships.
6) Modeling - children learn by imitation too. When an adult hits a child, they teach the lesson that hitting is ok.


There are some common arguments in favor of physical punishment:
7) My parents hit me, and I turned out fine. -or- My kids are well behaved because I hit them.
8.) The punishment fits the crime - sure I slapped his bottom, but he did x, y and z...he deserved it!
9) Nothing else worked
10) S/He needs to learn right from wrong.
11) It made him/her stop - therefore it works.

Here is another way to understand behaviors:
A functional behavioral perspective assumes that all behaviors serve a function. That is, no one does something "for no reason." If someone is going to go through the effort to do something, they must have a reason for it. They have some need and they are trying to meet it. For example, children often throw tantrums in order to get attention, or as a way to exert power with their parents (if you want this tantrum to stop, you will submit to my will!).
In behavioral terms: Antecedents(triggers) -> behaviors -> consequences
If the consequences are positive and meet needs, then the behaviors are strengthened and continue.

2) Reinforcement based approaches aim to teach alternative but functionally equivolent behaviors. We start from the assumption that the reason the child is engaging in inappropriate behaviors is that he or she is incompetent to engage in appropriate behaviors. For example, a child who bites to get his way is probably not capable of negotiating effectively. Negotiation would probably be more efficient and effective than biting, so he would do that if he could. The fact that biting is happening shows that he is missing an important skill. Our model is we start with:
Antecedent -> inappropriate behavior -> positive consequence
And we try to replace it with:
Antecedent -> inappropriate behavior -> no/minimal consequence AND Antecedent -> replacement behavior -> POSITIVE consequence

In other words we try to replace the inappropriate behavior with another replacement that is more effective and efficient at getting needs met. When this is done well, it can be very effective, and relatively painless.

This approach requires some thought and understanding, but for many people it is an intuitive and natural part of parenting. In most parents who use physical discipline, they are probably doing this as well, they just don't realize it.


3) The problem with the punishment model is people think that they are doing this:
Antecedent -> inappropriate behavior -> negative consequence
In most cases, though, they are actually doing this:
Antecedent -> inappropriate behavior -> positive consequence -> negative consequence

As an example, it is possible to prevent a dog from eating, even if it is hungry. All you have to do is administer shock every time the dog goes to eat food BEFORE it actually eats. If you successfully accomplish this, you can get a dog to starve to death with food in front of him. But here's the thing, if the dog succeeds in eating that food a few times, without getting shocked, or if the shock is administered after the dog has started eating, the result will be mixed for the dog. He will be both reinforced and punished at the same time. This dog will be miserable, but it will continue to eat.

A child who successfully steals and then gets punished, will experience both reinforcement and punishment. The punishment will not cancel out the reinforcement, instead it will encourage the child to innovate new ways to meet its needs. If the child's best strategy is stealing, then they will most likely innovate better ways to steal. Punishment will not necessarily stop stealing. Instead it will make the child work harder to not get caught.

Similarly, a child who hits to get attention will receive a lot of attention when his parents decide to use physical punishment. In this way that child will experience both reinforcement and punishment simultaneously.

In each of these scenarios the child does not learn an effective alternative strategy to get potentially reasonable needs met. Instead, the child learns to improve on their initial maladaptive strategy.

The only way for any kind of punishment strategy to be effective is if it is paired with effective extinction - that is the positive consequences of the behaviors are removed. The behavior must never result in a positive consequence. Just doing extinction is effective in stopping behaviors, and punishment is rarely necessary. Punishment can be used as an adjunct, and is potentially effective in that specific context. Note that I am not referring to physical punishment here - just punishment as a whole.

Extinction is this:
Antecedent ->behavior-> no consequence
Extinction + punishment is this:
Antecedent -> behavior -> negative consequence (and absolutely no positive consequence)

As I mentioned above, it is very difficult to consistently implement this sort of strategy.,,often the child still receives occasional reinforcement, so you wind up with that mixed consequence situation which isn't helpful. In many situations, children receive reinforcement without punishment, and then get caught and punished maybe one in 10 times.

4) Physical punishment is not more effective than other milder forms of punishment like time-outs, reprimands or losing privileges. This is a common myth about punishment, the bigger the punishment; the more learning occurs. In fact the most important variables with behavioral learning are latency (time between behavior and consequence) frequency and consistency. If a punishment strategy is going to be effective it just has to be prompt and consistent. A child who is told "no" every time that he tries to bite will learn much more than a child who is spanked 1 in 2 times he tries to bite...in either case, my earlier point still stands - a replacement behavior usually needs to be taught for the child to stop. If any kind of punishment is necessary, there are no situations where physical punishment will be more effective than a non-physical form of punishment. In many situations it will be worse because of modeling.

5) Physical punishment damages the bond between parents and children. This doesn't mean that a family can't still be close and loving even in the face of physical punishment, but the punishment does not help this situation, and often can hurt it. Children don't obey people who they have a poor relationship with, so if not enough work is done to repair this relationship, physical punishment can actually snowball behavioral problems by damaging the caregiver-child relationship to the point where the child no longer wants to please the caregiver. In these cases the physical punishment can result in a situation where a child follows the rules just well enough not to get punished (and then breaks them in defiance when he or she thinks he or she won't get caught).

6) Modeling - children learn by imitation. Parents who hit children teach their children that hitting is acceptable. If the children are clever, they learn the lesson that it is only ok for adults to hit children (which is sort of a twisted lesson). If the children are not clever, they over-generalize and learn that it is ok for a person to hit someone else when that person displeases them. This lesson leads to more problems!

7) My parents hit me and I turned out fine - This argument is absurd. I was hit by a car as a child, and I turned out fine...therefore everyone should be hit by cars? Just because something is possibly benign, does not make it desirable. We do not take prescription drugs because they probably won't kill us, we take them because we believe they will make us better. Likewise, the fact that hitting is present and a person is well behaved (i.e. a correlation) does not imply that the hitting caused the appropriate behavior (i.e. causation).

8.) The punishment fits the crime - I already described above how making a punishment worse does not really affect the learning that occurs, and that those other variables are much more important. Additionally, this concept of cold justice is not appropriate for children. If we were going to apply this principle to children, then those little moochers would have nothing to eat, because when was the last time they really earned a meal? Parents should nurture and foster independence in their children, not inflict justice upon them. Once they are able to be completely responsible for their actions, we can talk about justice.

9) Nothing else worked - this is a defeatist perspective. Often people say this, meanwhile the kid is well behaved in other settings, such as school. There is often ample evidence that a child is capable of appropriate behaviors in the right context. In either case, nothing working is no excuse to harm a child.

10) S/He needs to learn right from wrong. In most scenarios, children actually do know that what they did is wrong. If any kind of punishment has been used, or if the child was reprimanded in some way, they usually understand that this behavior is somehow undesirable. Hitting a child doesn't usually reinforce this lesson, it just damages the relationship between parent and child. In most situations when a child is doing something that they have been told is wrong, they know it is wrong, but they just don't know the right way to get those needs met. So the issue here is the child knows wrong already, but they don't know right. So stop teaching wrong, and start teaching right.

11) But it made him/her stop! This is the most insidious argument to be made in favor of physical punishment. It's often true that hitting a child will stop a behavior. I often conceptualize this situation as a coercive process. Lets take for example, a child who throws a tantrum in order to get attention. When his mother comes and spanks him, she will give him the attention he needs, and the tantrum will stop. Behaviorally, it looks like this:
No attention (antecedent) -> tantrum (behavior) -> spanking/attention (negative and positive consequence)
The parent thinks that the negative consequence stopped the behavior, while in fact the child stopped the behavior because his needs got met, and now the behavior has been strengthened so it will certainly happen again.
Meanwhile, the parent experiences this
tantrum (antecedent) -> spanking (behavior) -> tantrum stops (positive consequence)
They believe that the spanking worked and are behaviorally reinforced for it. The result is a recurring coercive process, the kid keeps tantruming and his mother keeps spanking, and both believe that what they are doing is effective.

I hope that all made sense and doesn't seem to preachy. It's an issue I'm passionate about, but I understand that physical punishment is popular and widely used and often not too harmful. I try to avoid being too preachy to people, but rather take the approach of teaching them other more effective ways, to handle their children...the same way that I try to teach children better and more effective ways to get their needs met.

physical punishment (not considered abuse) is associated with anxiety, anger, and delinquency in the children it's used on. when they grow up, they're more likely to have obesity, arthritis, and cardiovascular disease. certainly not harmless.

I could use you logic and apply it to other consequences parents give their kids. A kid does something wrong and they continue to get a consequence every time for that behavior like I did. Does that make any other punishments wrong? Kids do test their limits so they will try and get away with it and do things anyway after you threaten them with a consequence and they do it to test you. The key is being consistent and follow through and the kid ends up respecting you that way because they know you mean it and are serious with what you say.

Mom took my stuff away as a consequence, she would also make things off limits if I misused it, I imitated her behavior to my brothers so should that mean it's wrong to take away privileges or making things off limits to kids because it might teach them it's okay to take things away from other people that aren't theirs and telling them they can't use things?

People and studies also claim spanking makes the kid grow up to be in trouble with the law and be a delinquent and it also gives them anxiety in their adult hood and decreases their IQ. I would have to ask why is my brother okay? He still turned out very smart. He didn't get an anxiety disorder or become a criminal. My other brother didn't get anxiety either and turn into a criminal either and I doubt spanking gave him ADD just like I doubt a spanking gave me anxiety and problems in school and gave me AS and I didn't turn into a criminal either and I don't go around hitting people and neither do my brothers. My mom used to allow my brother to hit his younger brother whenever he hit him because she tried time outs and other things and none of them worked so she told my brother 'next time he hits you, you have my permission to hit him back" so he hit his brother every time he hit him and after a while he stopped because he didn't like getting hit by him. My youngest brother was just a hitter and he didn't grow out of it until he started getting hit for it. Whenever my brother had something he wanted, he would hit him to get it from him.

I hated being spanked when I was a kid so all my mom had to do was ask me if I wanted a spanking and I always said no and she would tell me she will do it if I don't stop. I also remember getting my mouth slapped if I said bad words so I never said them. I wasn't even allowed to say shut up or that would get my mouth slapped. I remember learning the f word and my mom has tried talking to me about it, she has tried other punishments and then one day she said next time I say that word I get my mouth slapped. I said it again but this time we happened to be at a restaurant and she slapped my mouth and I never said the word again. I would ask all the people out there who are apposed to slapping kids mouths what would they suggest my mother should have done if nothing else worked? It got me to not ever say the word again, not ever. Not the next day or the following week or following month, never.

Sure there are kids out there who don't mind being spanked but then that means it's ineffective and the parent should try something else. My mom has had to try different punishments with me that were effective. When time outs quit working, she had to find something else. When taking away my Barbies quit working, she had to find something else. I have even seen several people say online they wished they were spanked instead because it was quicker and it ended sooner. That just shows how ineffective it is on older kids so the reason why parents quit using it when they get to elementary school so you're right it isn't much more effective. I have heard of stories about people still being spanked in their teens and elementary school. I was rarely spanked past age six and haven't gotten one since age nine when I threw a stick at a bird's nest and it didn't hurt when she slapped my butt.

I am not against parents not spanking their children because whatever works with them works. One thing I used to feel strongly about was shaming children and now I am on the fence about it because so many parents and people seem to be fine with it and call it good parenting and I have seen the kids say how they still love their parents and they did it because they love them and they don't seem to be damaged or resenting them. Is it something new parents are doing or has it always been around? I have never seen it before except for online. Is it becoming a new parenting trend? This was never done to me and I never saw it happening to any child in my life. First time I ever heard of it was probably 2009 and that parent got ripped apart with comments. Now I am seeing positive comments about it and they seem to be taking over the negative comments. Even someone on my Facebook I went to school with thinks this is okay.

In the last ten years spanking has become a controversial issue and I do believe many parents still spank their kids because of an article I read in a parenting magazine about corporal punishment and it said 4 out of 5 parents spank or have spanked their kids, but they are just quiet about it because no parent likes to be judged and it's a strong and sensitive topic. I will still see parents admit online they have spanked their kids and have seen spanking debates on Babycenter between parents who find spanking okay and parents who are against it and it gets all heated up or turns into pro spankers mocking the anti spankers by posting exaggerated pictures of corporal punishments. Also when Delaware outlawed spanking in their state, many parents were pissed about it in the comments and were blaming it on child abusers and parents who don't know where to draw the line for hitting and how hard they should hit. Also I have read online by a social worker who is against spankings how she works with families and they try and find effective ways for their kids and most of them say they have tried spankings. Someone posted the same on my Facebook about her 3 year old son how she had tried everything; spankings, time outs, taking away things, etc. and he still won't learn. I just hope her son doesn't have a mental illness where nothing is effective and he doesn't care what punishments he gets. There are some kids out there like that and the parents can't do anything about it because nothing is effective and consequences do not work. Many people will argue about why spankings are fine and why spanking are bad and come up with reasons and use logic to prove their point like we have. I don't think we will ever agree or get convinced why it's wrong or fine.

Even though spanking is still not illegal in the states except Delaware, experts and social workers try and discourage it.

anecdotes are not valid scientific evidence.

Most of those arguments actually can be used against punishment in general (non-physical). That's why I generally don't recommend punishment as a strategy, I don't always try to do away with it either, because it is usually relatively benign. Again, same for minor spanking like you described. I'll try to teach alternative techniques and make it clear that the spanking isn't necessary, but I'm not going to judge someone harshly for doing what the majority of parents do at some point or other.

If we consider our tools as being carrot and stick, the main goal is to create incentives for appropriate behavior over inappropriate behavior. This can be done exclusively with the stick, and I think we all agree that that is the wrong approach - all punishment and no nurturing or love or affection will very likely harm a child. It is even worse when the stick is applied haphazardly, and not even tied to the child's behavior (like an abusive parent hitting the child when they're drunk).

Most parents provide a balance, some carrot and some stick. Both are loosely based on behavior. What's interesting to me is that when defending punishment, people only describe the stick, as if the carrot didn't exist. The carrot is automatic, so often that we forget it, and only remember the one or two times the kid got spanked. Maybe part of why the kid learned the lesson is that someone also taught him or her the right way to do it, and then praised him or her for staying on that positive track. I think parents deserve more credit for those things than for the two times they spanked the child.

To take that a step further; what most people don't understand is that it's possible to just use the carrot. If this is done haphazardly, then it's spoiling the child (you shouldn't reward a child as he is biting people). But if it is done carefully and planfully, it creates structure and does not require any punishment (aside from very mild reprimands occasionally).

Willard: you're right, I don't have kids of my own, but I have extensive experience working with and helping kids who have severe problem behaviors. I've spent more time with certain children over the course of a year or two then their own parents. I've studied different techniques for working with them extensively. I have also helped children to stop running away from adults into traffic, or hitting others or themselves. I've done all of this using only carrots, in almost all cases. I know parents face stressors that I don't, and that it's not always easy to think carefully and rationally about every little thing. But that's part of the point - punishment is easier to screw up, and it backfires as often as it works.

Again, I'm not trying to judge people who use punishment (especially non-physical punishment). I'm just pointing out there are other ways to do it that are more effective.

*sigh* A "public service message" from a non-parent who seems to think she's the first person to ever attend college or pick up a book. Gee, that's not condescending at all.

I am an aspie who is a non-parent. I have never raised a child nor have I babysat. I am ignorant on many matters at hand and in this manner I have no clue. Therefore, I have questions about the punishment model. I have had these questions for a while.

1. Does a child avoid stealing to avoid the consequences of his actions or does the child avoid stealing because he feels stealing is immoral and wrong?

2. What would the child do if the child could avoid punishment? Would this child steal if he figured he wasn't going to get caught or would he avoid stealing no matter what consequences were in place or not in place? If there were lack of consequences what would be the reaction of the child? Would he still not steal because it was morally wrong?

3. How does the punishment model get a child to know that something is wrong and actually feel in his heart that it is wrong. I will give an example of myself. If society got to a point and became so immoral that pedophile was allowed I would still not engage in it because I feel in my heart it is wrong. It hurts a child. It is wrong to hurt a child. It is a moral outrage to me.

Jack McClellan, is a self-admitted pedophile who would molest children if it was not against the law. The only thing holding Jack McClellan is the law. http://scaredmonkeys.com/2007/07/30/jac ... -web-site/

4. What is holding him back is fear of a negative consequence instead of feeling it is wrong. If the law broke down and/or pedophilia was somehow made legal what would hold this man back?

5. In Japan, during the tsunami and the nuclear power plant disaster order did not break down? Why didn't the Japanese start looting and rioting? Why did order break down during Hurricane Katrina in the USA?

6. When I think the punishment model, I do not grasp it and how it actually gets a child to accept and feel in his heart something is morally wrong. What is the theory and premises that make up the punishment model and how did these premises develop? What is the rationale behind punishment model? How does this model make a child into a noble and virtuous person?

7. I simply just do not understand. If I am using fallacious reasoning would a parent who truthfully knows and understands please show me where my reasoning is off?

8. One day in the future my wife and I will have a child. How do we raise them to be noble and virtuous? How does one properly raise a child?

I have been trying to formulate some comments about behaviorism since it came up in another thread, and I see some related thinking here.

I will answer the thread specifically about behaviorism when I get that more complicated thought together, but this discussion has brought part of that thought to the fore.

I read Skinner in high school and was disgusted by his way of thinking. Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding is that one of the things I found most repellent about Skinner is central to behaviorist thinking: the system of thought rejects any account of internal mental states except in so far as they are evidenced in physical action.

Emotion doesn't really exist in this system, except in the way it can be seen in physical responses or behaviors.

I find this intrinsically disgusting. It seems to me to be based in the most extreme disrespect for inner experience. It partakes in the root injustice that is the basis of the most reviled immorality: disrespect toward, disregard of and utter indifference to the personality, mind and feelings of others.

When is sex immoral? When one person pursues sexual gratification at the expense of another, without regard for the intention, feelings and person of that other.

What is offensive about beating or murdering people? The same extreme disrespect of the person and will of another.

Speech of some kind is absolutely necessary to have knowledge of the inner life of others. This is clear from the accounts of people who have been unable to communicate or exhibit "behavior" of any kind and then are given the ability to communicate and we learn from their speech about their silent experiences There are plenty of accounts of nonverbal autistics who gain the ability to communicate and then discuss remembered experiences with greater perception than those who observed their behavior had imagined possible. Similar accounts can be seen in the work of Oliver Sacks.

There are many critiques of the absurdity of "functional analysis of verbal behavior" so I won't get into that, but for the moment I will just say that the idea of looking at human beings in this way--as if they did not have thoughts and minds with meaningful, significant conceptual and emotional content seems immoral and almost obscene to me.

These thoughts have many implications for approaches to raising children. Too many for me to list just now--but the one I want to get across--that also addresses Cubedemon's question about an inner sense of morality--is that you cannot just look at a child as a system that responds to rewards and punishments. You must look at a child as a person with ideas and communicate new ideas to that person.

The thing I have seen in my children that resulted in their doing or saying harmful things was a failure to see the perspective or impact on others. Only by sharing ideas about this with them, verbally, have I been able to help them take a larger view and apply the golden rule, the foundation of ethics.

While a child is at a stage of development that precludes their applying the golden rule and related thinking to their actions and speech, it is up to the parents to prevent that child from harming others or himself or herself. Once the child has developed the capacity to internally model their circumstances and imagine the results of their interactions with others and the environment, then the parent's role is to help them think through more complicated situations and take/make moral choices. This has nothing to do with carrots or sticks.

A system of behavior modification that relies on carrots in sticks and fails to develop the inner moral faculty of the child is a form of child abuse, as I see it.

To the extent that behaviorist systems stray from the reductio ad absurdum of Skinnerian approaches and incorporate more respect for the mind and inner being of the person they are being applied to, they may be less appalling.

Sorry if that seemed like a tangential rant, but I wanted to "get it off my chest."

>>>>>>>>Edited to add:

I hope that my children see the ethical ideas I discuss with them enacted in my conduct. It is that combination of demonstrated behavior and verbal exchange of ideas that I trust will spark their own ethical senses and transmit these important parts of my culture and beliefs to them.

Adamentium,