(just starting a new thread with these thoughts)
Howdy,
This is nice topic to kick around because everyone has a different experience and opinion. Ultimately we are talking about the “end result” of corporal punishment and so experience teaches us that there are persons that were spanked that turned out great and persons that weren’t spanked that turned out great and the converse is true also.
What this suggests is that there is not “right” approach.
There are TWO ULTIMATE REASONS for any punishment:
ONE: Behaviour Modification. This is true “discipline” or training in some form where we are trying to correct negative or bad past behaviour and replace that with positive or good behavior in the future.
TWO: Moral Retribution. This is a sense of “justice” in the “eye- for-an-eye” view. This is the basic idea that for every action there is a moral consequence, and more than that, a “right” way of being.
Keep these two ultimate reasons in mind as you read further.
This issue of corporal punishment is very similar to the theories underlying addressing “criminal” conduct.
What we are really talking about here is what psychologists refer to as “behaviour modification” or getting someone’s to change their conduct.
There are of course two basic approaches to behaviour modification, POSITIVE reinforcement and NEGATIVE reinforcement.
Most people will agree that positive reinforcement is to be preferred and there is some evidence to support the notion that in many situations positive reinforcement is more effective (shows a stronger correlation to producing the desired behavioural response).
People who are so anti-spanking are really just saying the obvious, namely that they prefer positive reinforcement over negative reinforcement (which corporal punishment is a form). Well duhhhh!
We all can agree to that and in fact if positive reinforcement was 100% effective with our children we would always use incentives, rewards, warm counseling, instruction, etc. to produce the behavioural responses we desire. The reality however is that positive reinforcement is not effective all the time and therefore one must recognize that NEGATIVE reinforcement is not only valid but sometimes necessary to produce the desired change in behaviour.
Now lets examine the underlying theories behind criminal justice because essentially we are discussing the same idea.
There are four basic theories or “rationales” for criminal justice and in our discussion lets think of them in terms of the “punishment” we bestow upon our children.
1. Incapacity
The idea behind the incapacitative approach is that the person will be PHYSICALLY prevented from engaging in future negative conduct. When we give our child a “time out” that is exactly what we are doing (only using our intimidation and threats and generally not physical restraints). A criminal getting “20 to life” is also getting a “time out”. In fact in the American criminal justice system this is the root approach to criminal justice. We can conclude on our own just how effective this is both for curbing future criminal behaviour and with curbing the future negative behaviour of our children. Essentially it really does not address the underlying problem. You are therefore fooling yourself if you confuse the “temporary cessation” of the negative behaviour of a “time out” with true discipline and this form of punishment is very unlikely to produce true behaviour modification (learning).
2. Rehabiliation
The idea behind rehabiliation is that the negative behaviour results from faulty learning of proper behaviour or faulty application of good behaviour. The goal and underlying theory is that “correct” or “right” behaviour need only be learned and the individual will voluntarily adopt or conform to that newly learned correct behaviour in the future.
Think about the problem with this.
Example: You catch your child lighting matches. You can teach your child not to light fires, about what happens when fires are lit, etc. etc. But will that itself get them to conform and not play with matches again? No, you have to address the reasons WHY your child is so interested in lighting fires in the first place.
The failure with most attempts at rehabilitation is that it too often fails to address the underlying causalities or reasons behind the negative behaviour in the first place.
In the criminal context it is a farce since many of the “underlying reasons” poverty, etc. are not and cannot be addressed in prison.
But you may notice that often the most effective rehabilitation like certain drug-dependency rehab programs often address the underlying reasons with therapy and biological understanding.
3. Deterrence
This is the simplest and most basic form of behavioral modification. Essentially the point is to teach that for every ACTION X there is a CONSEQUENCE Y.
Deterrence is the idea that persons understanding that Negative Consequence Y will result from Action X will refrain from engaging in Action X in the first place.
In fact this form of behaviour modification is EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE, but there is a catch.
In order for it to be effective, the Consequence Y to Action X must be readily APPARENT, IMMEDIATE and CONSISTENT.
If Consequence Y is unknown or if it is separated in time (does not immediately follow) Action X then it will not be effective.
Indeed think about it. There would be very few murders committed if the standing behind the Murderer there was the Executioner with axe in hand so that immediately upon committing the murder the murderer would in turn be killed.
On the other hand if you knew you could do any negative Action X and not face Consequence Y until the end of your life would it be much of a deterrent?
This illustrates why the Death Penalty is NOT very effective in deterring capital crime in most states, because 1) the criminal does not see the punishment apparent at the time of committing the crime (and many times believe they will get away with it) and 2) the legal process and appeals, etc. means that the punishment won’t be for many many years anyway. It also explains why the death penalty is slightly more effective as a deterrent in Texas where the process is significantly speedier.
Getting back to our topic it is an important lesson for parents. If Deterrence is part of your philosophy in punishment then you MUST make it apparent, consistent and immediate.
Your child must first KNOW that Action X brings a spanking. (It is apparent to them, no surprises!)
Additionally you have to be CONSISTENT. You can’t let your child commit the act and one time spank him or her and the next time they commit the same act give them a different punishment. That will only confuse the child and undermine the effectiveness.
And it must be IMMEDIATE. Your child can’t commit some act that you disapprove and then weeks later you pull him out of bed and make him stand in a corner. That’s not effective deterrence. Nor should you wait until after the meeting or to get home to administer such punishment
Consistency, Apparency and Immediacy are the keys, other wise there will be no deterrence.
4. Retribution
Finally we have the fourth rationale or theory of criminal justice. The “eye-for-an-eye” the right and the wrong, morality, ethics, etc. In our criminal justice system this is reflected by the fact that certain crimes have corresponding punishments, escalating in seriousness.
Similarly in punishment of our children we reflect this idea buy punishing minor infractions with what we consider less punishment and more severe conduct more severely. A 2 minute time out versus a 5 minute time out. One swat versus ten swats and so on.
This is I think an often overlooked quality of our discipline. We too often forget that the lesson we are trying to teach our children is that there is a “right” way to behave for the sake of behaving rightly (not out of fear of punishment). This actually is the way that God deals with us and it is the closest rationale that reflects his divine attribute of Justice.
Finally let’s think about spanking specifically. Obviously by now we should be thinking about our motivation for spanking in the first place. We can all agree that spanking (or striking our child) out of anger is not appropriate.
What happens when we spank?
There is both physical pain and emotional fear created. Both are effective negative reinforcement if they are strong enough.
In spanking we briefly INCAPACITATE the child.
If prior to spanking or immediately after we discuss with the child the REASONS for the spanking then we are striving to teach or REHABILITATE the child.
If we are consistent and the child KNOWS (i.e. it is APPARENT) that a spanking will be coming IMMEDIATELY upon the commission of Negative Action X every time (CONSISTENCY) then it will be an effective DETERRENT also.
Finally, the physical pain and emotional fear instilled by a spanking are how we exact a “moral retribution” for whatever they have done improperly.
But more importantly if we, especially during the “rest of the time,” discuss with them and set the example for the right way of doing things ourselves then we will be reflecting justice. This means treating our children and others fairly and being consistent and morally right in our own conduct and our dealings towards them. In this way they learn the principle of justice and right behaviour and it further creates a proper expectation on their part that others exert right conduct towards them.
So is spanking bad. Not when it is done in the right way.
Of course spanking should not be the only tool we use or the only form of punishment (negative reinforcement) that we resort to when something occurs. It doesn’t have to be the last or final resort and in fact may be counterproductive if it is the last resort since the child will learn that he can ignore all of your other punishments until you get to that last straw. That is not the message you want to send.
Instead try and use everything you can to discipline your child with righteousness.
--Eduardo