10 Reasons not to hit your kids.

[Bungleau]

Negative reinforcement doesn't have to mean spanking. It can also mean timeout, loss of privilege, loss of articles, and more. Personally, I think the other options are more indicative of real life. I mean, it's common to lose privileges and such in your working life, but when's the last time you got spanked?

Okay, and let's keep that to the current thread, shall we? [img]smile.gif[/img] Spanking for *ahem* gratification is a whole 'nother topic.

As for relying on positive reinforcement, people (even kids) generally do things for one of two reasons: to get pleasure or avoid pain. Where it can get muddy is when some people get pleasure from the negative reinforcement. And I'm not talking about spanking thrills... I'm talking about getting punished, and getting a whole lot of one-on-one time with dad while it happens. Sometimes that undivided attention, even if it's for misbehaving, is worth it.

We're working on behavior issues with my son (honest, I don't know where he gets his stubborn streak from [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] ). We're trying to focus on rewarding good behaviors while making our interruption or disapproval of bad behaviors a matter-of-fact thing -- no explanations, no discussions, just removal of the problem. Hopefully, that way he'll realize he gets more attention from behaving, so he'll continue to do it more often.

Will we allow bad behavior? No. It's just that we're not going to make a big deal of it so that it loses its appeal.

Time will tell if we're doing it right...

[Dirty Meg]

Hitting children is not a way of teaching them right from wrong. It is, at best, a way of keeping them under control. A child who behaves well because of fear of being hit will not behave well when the threat of violence is lifted. Unless you plan on being with your children all the time, well into their old age, spanking is not an effective way of moderating behavior.

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by Bungleau: Okay, and let's keep that to the current thread, shall we? [img]smile.gif[/img] Spanking for *ahem* gratification is a whole 'nother topic.

The fact that the buttocks are an erogenous area (for some people anyway) is actually quite relevent to this debate. If somebody touched your arse without at least implied consent, you would be outraged. Spanking is intended to cause psycological rather than physical discomfort.

[ 07-01-2004, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: Dirty Meg ]

[wellard]

Great topic. Good thought provoking arguments from all sides. Who said lively discussion could not be achieved in this part of the forum? [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Bungleau]

Good point, Dirty Meg. I was trying to keep this away from a spanking gratification twist, and you put it right back onto the more serious side.

I had only considered the spanking aspect, but certainly inappropriate touching does happen in the real world. However, I don't think it's used for the same intents as spanking, nor do I think it's viewed as the same by the recipient.

From an adult perspective, if someone spanks you, they can be charged with battery. If they touch you inappropriately, there's sexual harassment. I don't believe either of those legal options really exist in a parent/child relationship... at least, not below a certain age. And I'm not certain where that age might be... 10? 13? Old enough to fight back?

Sure, there is child abuse for things that get out of hand, but where does one cross the line? I guess that's why the legal profession continues to exist... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Bungleau: Negative reinforcement doesn't have to mean spanking. It can also mean timeout, loss of privilege, loss of articles, and more. Personally, I think the other options are more indicative of real life. I mean, it's common to lose privileges and such in your working life, but when's the last time you got spanked? Okay, and let's keep that to the current thread, shall we? [img]smile.gif[/img] Spanking for *ahem* gratification is a whole 'nother topic. As for relying on positive reinforcement, people (even kids) generally do things for one of two reasons: to get pleasure or avoid pain. Where it can get muddy is when some people get pleasure from the negative reinforcement. And I'm not talking about spanking thrills... I'm talking about getting punished, and getting a whole lot of one-on-one time with dad while it happens. Sometimes that undivided attention, even if it's for misbehaving, is worth it. We're working on behavior issues with my son (honest, I don't know where he gets his stubborn streak from [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] ). We're trying to focus on rewarding good behaviors while making our interruption or disapproval of bad behaviors a matter-of-fact thing -- no explanations, no discussions, just removal of the problem. Hopefully, that way he'll realize he gets more attention from behaving, so he'll continue to do it more often. Will we allow bad behavior? No. It's just that we're not going to make a big deal of it so that it loses its appeal. Time will tell if we're doing it right...

While I absolutely agree with your post, and I think you and your wife are totally going to reap the benefits of your behaviour management plan, I'd just like to reiterate what I have said on this thread, and Thoran has said on the other spanking thread, that spanking is not negative reinforcement! Positive and negative in this case do not mean good and bad, they refer to whether the consequence imposed adds something or takes something away. I really think they should have named the terms additive reinforcement and removal reinforcement instead of positive and negative so it wouldn't keep being confused!

Basically you are imposing a consequence on a target behaviour, which you want to either increase, or decrease. Good behaviour you want to increase, so you add something good so they learn they will get pleasant things if they do the behaviour again (positive reinforcement), or take away something bad, so they learn that doing the behaviour again they won't have to do a thing they dislike (negative reinforcement). Bad behaviour you want to decrease, so you can add something bad, like a spank, or extra chores, so they learn if they do the behaviour again it will be followed by something they dislike (positive punishment), or take away something good, like not being allowed to watch TV or taking away toys, so they learn that if they do the behaviour again they will lose privileges (negative punishment) [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree about the problem of liking the attention they get from getting into trouble, especially if the parent gets into a protracted discussion about what they did wrong - your way of paying minimal attention to bad behaviour and being matter-of-fact about punishment is very effective. It's also why the techniques of quiet time and time out are so effective, because they don't get any attention at all.

[Bungleau]

*tips hat* I can always tell when I'm out-classed

Not being a psychologically-educated person, I look at it as agreeable or disagreeable consequences to agreeable or disagreeable behavior. I tend to use the word "positive" for agreeable, and "negative" for disagreeable. I believe I is much better edumacated now