Well, I didn't really punish either. Natural consequences, yes. But formal punishment--just about never. It worked fine with my kids but some kids may need something more, I don't know. Parental disappointment is a biggie with kids who have a good relationship and that is one natural consequence.

cathyincali wrote:I think I may differ from many of you in my feelings about punishment. Not just corporal punishment, but all punishment... When I had a problem, it didn't occur to me to think, "What should the punishment be?"

"Consequences" is an over-used word that many people use to replace the word, but not the idea of, punishment; however, there are sometimes consequences to actions, and when there were, my kids often had to face them. For example, when my kids were very young, two of them had experiences of "stealing": they picked something up at the store and didn't pay for it. (They were 3 to 5 years old, and the items were small and inexpensive.) When I found out, we both went back to the store to return the items. In one case, my daughter returned it and apologized for stealing, and although she was embarrassed and NEVER wanted to feel that way again, she wasn't completely mortified, and it has never come up since. The other daughter was very, very shy and couldn't possibly talk to the shopkeeper, so I did the returning, the talking, and the apologizing, and she just stood there clinging to my hand and feeling bad. I didn't do extravagant things to shame them, we just made it right. To me, that is a consequence and not a punishment.

Actual consequences worked even when they were older. Even teens. If I was unhappy with some behavior, I told them so. If there was a natural consequence that the child/teen could and should bear, I let them. (Like having to replace something they broke out of major carelessness.) I was probably lucky that my kids were pretty well behaved, but mutual respect and trust, lots of communication, high expectations, modeling, and natural consequences made punishment pretty much unnecessary.

(Obviously I made mistakes and shouted at times and hit that one time I already admitted somewhere in the posts above. Also, my kids were not perfect and remain imperfect.)

So...what do you think? Is it just semantics? Are punishments, per se, administered in "cold blood" or while angry even necessary?

If the consequence is punishment enough, then "punishment" is overkill. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.

Also, I'd like to say that teaching by example beats all. As hard as it is to believe to some people, children take more cues from their parents than anyone else.

Mac_Guffin wrote:
If the consequence is punishment enough, then "punishment" is overkill. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.

Yup, very true.

Also, I'd like to say that teaching by example beats all. As hard as it is to believe to some people, children take more cues from their parents than anyone else.

Also very true and something I wish more parents will keep in mind. They expect their children to treat them and others with respect and yet so often don't treat their children that way. And then they're surprised when their kids are rude to them or others.

You certainly do seem to have a lot of good ideas about raising kids for such a young guy.

I often ask my children "What would you do if you were the mummy?" Their answers are usually a far greater punishment than I'd intended. They say things like "Smack my bottom" or "No birthday party" when the norm would be things like no tv for fighting with one another, or no pudding if messing around at the dinner table. So I look like a good(ish) guy after all. WIN!!

I've joined just to reply to this thread - perhaps against my better judgement as it's a subject I'm passionate about on 2 levels ethically and academically.

Ethics of violent punishment
By and large we do not accept hitting adults is ethically ok, we as a society view it in a very different light and this is heightened when those punished are vulnerable, like people with learning disabilities (LD) or the elderly. What strikes me as bizarre is the contrast between how we view hitting adults to children. There is some support for hitting adults 'when they deserve it' and when they are not vulnerable, ie the whole 'pick on someone who can defend themselves', yet when it comes to children we justify it by their vulnerability, as a short cut to keep them safe, a necessity BECAUSE they do not have adult reasoning. This way of thinking is utterly illogical, a 20yr old with LD is equally at risk from cars, equally able to hurt someone else (actually more so) and may be equally unable to listen to or understand reasoning. Even away from the disabilities issues adults are routinely trained to do dangerous jobs where accepting authority is essential to their wellbeing but we don't accept that such authority should be displayed through violence at ANY level. Give me a situation from a child's world where hitting is good and I can mirror it in the adult world where oddly the ground rules change. I would argue that this dichotomy is a throw back to times where violence to enforce authority was seen as justifiable wherever an individual was viewed as responsible for another - hitting a wife was once seen as standard because women were viewed in such a light.

If hitting a child is right because they 'need' such parameters and these cannot be put in place by any other means then hitting an adult must be equally right under the same conditions - yet, it is not.

Academically.
Since Pavlov and Skinner the nature of reinforcers and aversives has been studied, the former often incorrectly referred to as rewards and the latter equally wrongly seen the same as punishment. Reinforcers need not have a conscious rewarding 'feeling' they are defined simply as a consequence which increases the behaviour preceding it. This is an important distinction. Hitting a child 'successfully' (ie when it seems to work) maybe unpleasant for the adult but achieving a desired result is a safe bet in terms of reinforcers, in other words no matter how unrewarding it 'feels' the reality of the perceived success increases the likelihood of repeated hitting, the consequence has reinforced the hitting behaviour of the adult.

Equally, aversives are not measured by how bad they feel but by their effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of the preceding behaviour being repeated and this is where they become distinct from the vanacular understanding of punishment. A child may remain desperately upset about being spanked, it may even 'look' effective as the behaviour stops while the child cries but neither of these means it is working as an aversive, only the reduced repetition of the preceding behaviour (whether they will do it again) shows effectivness. Aversives are effective, they do work but they are laden with cock up potential as to use them well is both counter intuitive and 'feels' cruel, to use aversives effectively you have to begin with the harshest because if an aversive is used and the behaviour still repeated with each use it becomes less effective (bearing in mind re-use means it didn't work that well at outset this is not good), meanwhile the person delivering the punishment may well still be reinforced as they are looking at the emotional effect (how sad the child is) rather than the behavioural effect OVER TIME. Aversives were dropped in the vast majority of therapeutic settings because even those trained in their use, those qualified, practice and aware of all the above were simply unable to use them effectively, and in many cases unable to prevent escalation to out and out abuse - not because all these people were monsters but because the act of applying an aversive is often reinforced in the person applying it. It dangerously appears to work but to keep that feeling it invariably begins to escalate in order to produce the same effect as the person hit/shocked/tied/locked/or humiliated acclimatises.

I'm going to have to come back to this!

Valden wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

I'm With Stupid wrote:I accept that there could be a hypothetical situation where it might be appropriate, but I can't say I've ever seen it. Like shouting at kids, it tends to be the far more common situation that the parents is angry. It might be understandable, but I don't see it as the example of good parenting that some like to claim it is.

I remember hearing a sermon at a friend's church years ago about spanking. The preacher talked about how you should and shouldn't do it, telling the parents not to do it in anger, but to calm down 1st and then spank them.

To me, that seems more sick than spanking out of anger. It seems very cold to hit a kid with no emotion... not saying that doing it out of anger is good.

In my experience, I've seen spanking work (very rarely), when done in a certain manner, but I think there are better alternatives that work just as well. Perhaps, some of them require a bit more effort, but if you can avoid resorting to such a simplistic means of discipline, you should do it at all costs.

Completely agree.

I've also been told by a few Pro-Spankers that spanking is "not supposed to actually hurt."

When I asked them what the point in doing it in the first place if it was not support to hurt then, and that there are other non-painful ways to discipline a child, they just rambled.

I can't help but think those that spank just do it because it's quick and easy, and because children are defenseless, they can't really defend themselves against their own parents. They're pretty much taught not to, and that they have no choice. They are easy targets.

Any other sort of discipline takes a bit more thought and effort.

Spanking isn't supposed to injure, its supposed to shock. Spanking is something that should be done extremely rarely, never in anger, and is best reserved for when a child does something that potentially endangers themselves or others.

If its done very rarely the lesson assocoaiated with it tends to stick, I was spanked by my parents very, very rarely but I still remember the lessons - don't run into the road and leave saucepans on the hot plates well alone. I doubt a stern talking to or similar would have stuck in my memory as well.

I've spanked my son once, he got so angry he physically attacked my wife when he was 12. He hasn't done it since even when he's been just as angry - he sticks at shouting and sulking. Sometimes the alternatives just don't work or do not have the immediacy required.

I had to go get my daughter up - but there was one more reason that I think hitting (even if referred to as spanking to neutralise) is wrong. Children learn by imitation, they do what they see done, despite all attempts to arrest this as a simple truth it remains the case, despite sayings such as 'Do as I say not as I do' it remains. Whenever an adult hits a child they teach hitting, perhaps they teach only hitting when you're the bigger one, perhaps they teach only hitting when the alternative seem to require too much time but still, it teaches hitting. I live in the real world and know that for some people that is a bonus, some people do want to pass it on, to the next generation and as a life lesson, for some a world without enforcing 'fairness' with violent acts is not plausible to imagine. I think that is something which is incredibly sad.

Very interesting, floppit. I hope to see you post more.

"If spanking works, why do you have to do it more than once?"

I don't know who said that, but it quite accurately reflects my views on this matter

Good posts floppit, I think you made a mistake here though:

floppit wrote:
Academically.
Since Pavlov and Skinner the nature of reinforcers and aversives has been studied, the former often incorrectly referred to as rewards and the latter equally wrongly seen the same as punishment.

The technical terms are reinforcement (an increase in behavior) and punishment (a decrease in behavior) - these are often confused with 'reward' and 'aversives', but reinforcement doesn't need to be rewarding and punishment doesn't need to be aversive, in the common sense of the words.

floppit wrote:Hitting a child 'successfully' (ie when it seems to work) maybe unpleasant for the adult but achieving a desired result is a safe bet in terms of reinforcers, in other words no matter how unrewarding it 'feels' the reality of the perceived success increases the likelihood of repeated hitting, the consequence has reinforced the hitting behaviour of the adult.

...

Aversives were dropped in the vast majority of therapeutic settings because even those trained in their use, those qualified, practice and aware of all the above were simply unable to use them effectively, and in many cases unable to prevent escalation to out and out abuse - not because all these people were monsters but because the act of applying an aversive is often reinforced in the person applying it.

Reinforcers are generally chosen over punishment methods due to the practical and ethical concerns, rather than any difference in efficacy; in other words, when done correctly, punishment will change behavior just as much as reinforcement will. The simple fact of the matter though, is that as effective and preferred reinforcement is as a behavioral change technique, we cannot eliminate punishment methods completely from our repertoire. Depending on the contingencies of reinforcement which maintain certain problem behaviors, or given the rapid decline in health of some person, it is sometimes absolutely necessary to implement punishment procedures. However, this is only for extremely serious issues such as head banging and other self injurous behavior etc.

In the context of the thread though, you're absolutely right. Reinforcement will work for practically every child and punishment should never need to be used.

Mac_Guffin wrote:Should it be considered abuse, or is it more complicated? Does it have any advantages over non-corporal discipline?... and should those advantages matter?

If you can't control a two year old, then maybe you shouldn't have children. Having to beat older children to get control, is a sign you've lost moral authority over them. Moral as in kids generally want to please their parents. Obeying out of fear isn't good discipline., and if they see you beat up on people aren't you sending the msg that physical violence is ok to get you own way?

floppit wrote:I've joined just to reply to this thread - perhaps against my better judgement as it's a subject I'm passionate about on 2 levels ethically and academically.

Ethics of violent punishment
By and large we do not accept hitting adults is ethically ok, we as a society view it in a very different light and this is heightened when those punished are vulnerable, like people with learning disabilities (LD) or the elderly. What strikes me as bizarre is the contrast between how we view hitting adults to children. There is some support for hitting adults 'when they deserve it' and when they are not vulnerable, ie the whole 'pick on someone who can defend themselves', yet when it comes to children we justify it by their vulnerability, as a short cut to keep them safe, a necessity BECAUSE they do not have adult reasoning. This way of thinking is utterly illogical, a 20yr old with LD is equally at risk from cars, equally able to hurt someone else (actually more so) and may be equally unable to listen to or understand reasoning. Even away from the disabilities issues adults are routinely trained to do dangerous jobs where accepting authority is essential to their wellbeing but we don't accept that such authority should be displayed through violence at ANY level. Give me a situation from a child's world where hitting is good and I can mirror it in the adult world where oddly the ground rules change. I would argue that this dichotomy is a throw back to times where violence to enforce authority was seen as justifiable wherever an individual was viewed as responsible for another - hitting a wife was once seen as standard because women were viewed in such a light.

I was trying to read through this thread before responding but your post caught my eye. I'm somewhat undecided on spanking but I've often slanted towards the argument of at least reserving it for situations such as a two year old running out into the road. Your analogy (which I bolded above) is interesting and mostly accurate accept on one point that makes a significant difference to me.
It's reasonable to expect that a normal two year old will learn both short term (from the spank) and long term (as their ability to reason develops) why such behavior is negative. The spanking is then, for better or worse, part of that learning experience. A 20 with a LD however can not be reasonably expected to learn such a lesson either way. Even if the spanking has a short term benefit it will probably be lost and necessitate additional reinforcement indefinitely. The adult with the LD is most likely never going to get past the stage of having to be threatened with one type of harm to deter another.
The two year old is actually learning something - even if in a less than ideal manor - where as the LD adult is constantly being deterred.

A 20 with a LD however can not be reasonably expected to learn such a lesson either way. Even if the spanking has a short term benefit it will probably be lost and necessitate additional reinforcement indefinitely. The adult with the LD is most likely never going to get past the stage of having to be threatened with one type of harm to deter another.
The two year old is actually learning something - even if in a less than ideal manor - where as the LD adult is constantly being deterred.

But the rationale for not spanking the 20-yr-old, isn't based on whether or not they'd learn anything from it, it's based on the fact that:

we don't accept that such authority should be displayed through violence at ANY level

So why accept that authority should be displayed over children through violence? The issue is the acceptability of violence as a means of asserting authority, not really its effectiveness or otherwise as a learning tool.


In my household, we don't spank. Even my husband - a religious conservative who takes the Bible literally - feels that the "spare the rod, spoil the child" saying is metaphorical, and the "rod" referred to should be more broadly defined as discipline, not physical punishment. Discipline is important, but physical discipline sends the message that it's OK to use violence to get your way.

I also agree with other posters who've already commented that most often, spanking is done out of anger (anger can also seem perfectly calm and detached, don't forget). Believe me, there are times when I'm so angry, I actually feel like I want to smack the child just to satisfy my own anger. I don't, because I'm a rational human being who can overcome that urge.

Smacking may work in the short term as a punishment or deterrent, but in my opinion/experience it leaves those involved - the child and the parent - feeling as if something shameful has happened. Timeout works well - for kids, and sometimes for parents who need to calm-the-hell-down.

Bolero wrote:

A 20 with a LD however can not be reasonably expected to learn such a lesson either way. Even if the spanking has a short term benefit it will probably be lost and necessitate additional reinforcement indefinitely. The adult with the LD is most likely never going to get past the stage of having to be threatened with one type of harm to deter another.
The two year old is actually learning something - even if in a less than ideal manor - where as the LD adult is constantly being deterred.

But the rationale for not spanking the 20-yr-old, isn't based on whether or not they'd learn anything from it, it's based on the fact that:

we don't accept that such authority should be displayed through violence at ANY level

So why accept that authority should be displayed over children through violence? The issue is the acceptability of violence as a means of asserting authority, not really its effectiveness or otherwise as a learning tool.

Sorry I must have missed the part where it was stated that asserting authority was the sole purpose of spanking a child, or at least the sole purpose as it relates to this discussion.

My point is simply that the ability to learn does have implications on how we would treat an individual. There is a practical difference in how we treat a person who has yet to reach a developmental stage and somebody who will never reach that same developmental stage. It would be wrong both ways; to treat a 20 year with a child's mentality as a child or to treat a child the same as an adult who has the mentality of a child.

ymitchell wrote:Obeying out of fear isn't good discipline., and if they see you beat up on people aren't you sending the msg that physical violence is ok to get you own way?

Ultimately, the reason one obeys governments is out of fear of physical violence, so one could argue this message is an important one for life as an adult.

Mac_Guffin wrote:Should it be considered abuse, or is it more complicated? Does it have any advantages over non-corporal discipline?... and should those advantages matter?

I don't see it as abuse. There is quite a difference between beating a child and discipline. I believe in spanking as a last resort to get a child to listen. My approach is to talk with them and teach them what is right. The problem is parents take the disciplining wayyyyyy too far. Granted I don't constant spanking is a need, you can always reason with a child and there's ways to go about raising them. To constantly spank and discipline without reasoning, I find to be abuse. It's kind of complicated to explain, but those are my views on it.

Spanking is bad for a kid. Though, I'm not speaking as a parent, I'm sure I will never do such things to my kids.

It depends on their age. If they 1-3 or even 4, they don't really know what's going, what's wrong to do and what's not. So no one should harm them for doing something bad. And if they're older, the parent can explain it to them and they'll try not to do it again. The parent can go a bit over-board with words, meaning, saying something really stupid just to scare the kids. Or if they don't want to be like the fear-mongering church, they can give a quick lesson to the kid on permanent death and nasty scars that hurt like hell...etc., but in a way that it is bad for their health, for their parent's health (nerves) and they should keep themselves out of trouble, and don't cause trouble to their parents or anyone and the kids will get the picture.

Generally I'd say avoid it. Once I had to as my child was really young walking with me near a road. He was goofing off and no matter what I said he wouldn't listen to me. Safety was a concern as there were cars around and I was worried he would run out in front of one. So I spanked him once in the butt. He listened. In that case I feel it an exception to the rule. Besides that time I don't feel comfortable spanking my kids.

ymitchell wrote:[
If you can't control a two year old, then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Can anyone control a two year old though?

I do think that people who use extreme methods of 'discipline' generally have unrealistic expectations about how children act. Children are not adults, they will make a mess, they will do silly stuff and they do have the ability to press all sorts of buttons.

I'm not a hard core disciplinarian. I think that my kids do realise that the reason why I ask them to do certain things is because I care about them and want them to be safe and happy - not because I want to 'control' them.

Two of my kids are as big as/bigger than me now - if I tried to smack them they'd probably bloody batter me

melchior wrote:

ymitchell wrote:[
If you can't control a two year old, then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Can anyone control a two year old though?

I do think that people who use extreme methods of 'discipline' generally have unrealistic expectations about how children act. Children are not adults, they will make a mess, they will do silly stuff and they do have the ability to press all sorts of buttons.

Exactly, when they're only 1-3 years old, they don't realize what they're doing, what's wrong, and what isn't. Spanking them therefore can be considered, and by me it is, to be unrealistic and irresponsible for the parent, harming them for doing something bad when they have no control over it. Small children behave like cats and dogs, curious little critters, just doing stuff. When they get older, the parent can explain things to them and they'll try not to do it again.