Spanking vs. Abuse: Is There a Difference?

I watched the show Friday and had some comments about spanking. There are three primary methods of conditioning. The first is operant conditioning (including reinforcement and punishment - developed by B. F. Skinner), the second is classical conditioning (developed by Ivan Pavlov), and the third is observational conditioning (developed by Albert Bandura). Classical conditioning is typically not very effective when used on humans (very effective on other species within the kingdom animalia, however).
We'll focus on reinforcement and punishment first. Both are broken into two subcategories: positive and negative. Positive reinforcement is when a response is followed by the addition of a reinforcing stimulus (ex: after receiving good grades on his/her report card, the child is given a new video game). Negative reinforcement is when a response is followed by the subtraction of an aversive stimulus (ex: after a child's grades have improved, the child's television privileges are reinstated). Think of positive as adding something good, and negative as subtracting something bad. Positive punishment is when a response is followed by the addition of an aversive stimulus (ex: spanking the child for bad grades). Negative punishment is when a response is followed by the subtraction of a reinforcing stimulus (ex: taking away television privileges for bad grades). Think of positive as adding something bad and negative as subtracting something good. Here's primarily where they differ: reinforcement is used to increase the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated; punishment is used to decrease the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated. The greater the consistency and shortness of delay of reinforcement/punishment, the greater the level of conditioning. Notice "consistency and shortness of delay" is mentioned - severity is not.
The only subcategory to be concerned with is positive punishment. Studies show that positive punishment works best in the beginning because it instills fear (the child is fearful of the pain associated with spanking); however, positive punishment tactics decrease in effectiveness over time. This is partly because the fear usually turns into anger and even hatred. Reinforcement techniques are more sustainable. Let me give you a real life application: governing a child is not much different than governing a country. Look at governments governed by "love." The majority of them throughout history were very successful for a very long time. Now look at the governments governed by "fear." The majority of them were very successful at first, but eventually the citizens revolted (in fact this is how our country came into existence). By spanking your child, you will see desirable and immediate results, but years down the road you will begin to reap what you sow because the child will most likely become more aggressive and antisocial (studies by Elizabeth Gershoff and many others have found there to be a positive correlation between level of spanking as children and level o****gression and antisocial behavior as adolescence/young adults - positive correlation is not a good thing in this instance), and they will be more likely to depart from you. Most parents who spank their children have a hard time seeing this because the side effects don't arise until years down the road. Think about this: if a pellet is presented as soon as a mouse hits a button, then the mouse will begin to associated the button with food. However, if the pellet is presented a day after the mouse hits the button, then the mouse will not come to associate the button with food. The same concept applies to spanking because the side effects arise so long after the spanking and not immediately. One area where reinforcement and punishment contradict is in the area of love and fear. It's hard to love something that you fear. For example, is it possible for you to love a spider if you suffer from arachnophobia? This may be extreme but the point still holds true. This contradiction often leads to the child being confused about their responsibilities. I'll give you a real life example. My mother always conditioned me via reinforcement and negative punishment techniques; my father always conditioned me via positive punishment techniques. Today I am very close with my mother; however, today I don't know wither my father is dead or alive. My father would get me every other weekend (after their divorce) and I recall spending most of the weekend with a headache and nausea because I was so stressed. I was constantly worried if I would do something that would elicit a spanking. This level of stress has detrimental effects on the child as well. In the end, I came to fear my father more than love him.
Now let me venture observational conditioning. When you act, your child sees this and comes to believe it's acceptable behavior. I'm sure all parents at some point have found their child imitating them. Children's brains are primed for imitation. This is how they learn language. No one teaches them to speak, they jus*****ch their parents do it, and they imitate. The same think applies to spanking. When a child sees his parent spanking them, they come to think it is acceptable to hit others. You may say "But my child knows the difference between me spanking them and them hitting someone else." This assumption is not true, however. Here is an example: when a child asks for the first time "What is that?" and you say "It's a dog." Then when the child sees a cat, they may say "Look, a dog!" This is because they know what a dog is, but when they see another four legged furry animal they think it to also be a dog. The same concept applies to spanking. They are unable to reason why there is a difference between you hitting them, and them hitting a kid at school. As a parent, you must understand your child's very limited cognitive ability. Children can understand concrete questions and answers such as "What color is this chair?" - the answer may be "Brown." They cannot understand abstract questions and answers like "What is respect and what does it mean to live respectfully?" Some adult philosophers are still contemplating this question, so how do you expect a child to fully understand it?
Many studies have been conducted on the effects of positive punishment as a conditioning method on children. Some have tried to better understand the child's mind. This is important because if I ask you "What does it mean to be a three year old?" You cannot answer this question objectively. Here is why: though you were once a three year old, you remember nothing from those years. Here's an analogy: let's say you get really drunk at a party one night and a friend teaches you to play poker because you never knew how. The next day, you cannot recall the previous night due to your level of intoxication. My question then is "Do you know how to play poker?" If the knowledge is predicated on the experience, then yes; but if the knowledge is predicated on the memory, then no. What's important to understand is that knowledge is dependent on both the experience and the retention of the experience (memory). So just because you were a three year old once, doesn't mean you know what it means to be a three year old now because you have the experience but not the memory. You can of course imagine what it is like for you to be a three year old, but that's not the question at hand. The question at hand is: what is it for a three year old to be a three year old - a question you cannot answer objectively. So while you may think that your child is learning respect by your methods of positive punishment, I assure you they are not (I explain why in the next paragraph). You may say that your parents spanked you and you turned out ok, but this is more of the exception than the norm. Also you may not actually be as ok as you think. Self-identity is often inaccurate because it is difficult for us to evaluate ourselves objectively.
Now that this metaphysical conundrum has been resolved, I continue with my discussion of the psychology experiments on the effects of spanking children. When a child misbehaves and is spanked, the psychologist would ask the child privately about their thoughts and feelings of the spanking. I assure you not one answered "I now know what it means to be respectful." Common answered included "Mommy doesn't like me anymore" and "I did a bad thing." While the later may be a positive revelation, the former certainly is not. These experiments hold true because it is a three year old commenting on the experience of a three year old, and not an adult commenting on the experience of a three year old. If you decide to try this at home, you must get someone else to question the child and they must not lead the child by saying things such as "Do you feel sad?" but instead leave the questions open for personal expression such as "How do you feel?" In this way, demand characteristics can be eliminated and the integrity of the scientific method upheld. If you don't believe that children have a different and unknowable perspective than adults, let me give you this example: infants in the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development do not posses a quality known as object permanence. If a nine month old is playing with a ball and it rolls under the couch (out of view), they do not go looking for it because they do not understand that it continues to exist even though it cannot be sensed. This is also why infants find "peek-a-boo" so entertaining. The fact that the ball no longer exists may seem absurd to you, but to the child it appears as a necessary truth.
If we accept the premise that hitting someone is not respectable, then isn't if awfully hypocritical of parents how spank to expect respect when they themselves are exhibiting such disrespect? That's no different than a parent telling a child "Do not cuss" only for the parent to then cuss like a sailor. It is best if reinforcement techniques are used from birth. Once the damage of positive punishment has been done, it can be difficult for reinforcement techniques to be effective (but not impossible). Here are some tactics to effectively change a child's behavior without side effects:
*Reinforce an incompatible behavior. For instance, if you're trying to decrease a child's whining, respond to their requests only when they talk in a normal tone of voice.
*Stop reinforcing problem behavior. For instance, if your child is whining and you give in, this simply reinforces whining.
*Reinforce the non-occurrence of problem behavior. For instance, if you're trying to reduce bickering between your children, set an appropriate time limit, and then provide positive reinforcement if they have not bickered during that time interval.
*Remove the opportunity to obtain. For instance, time-out. The time-out begins as soon as the child begins to exhibit undesirable behavior, and ends as soon as the behavior is under control.
*Use induction - a discipline technique that combines parental control with explaining why a behavior is prohibited. Induction enhances the child's ability to reason. This includes:
**The reason for prohibition of behavior (the why behind the what)
**The consequences associated with the behavior.
**The effect of the child's behavior on others and/or themselves.
*Role model
*Use positive and negative reinforcement techniques as primary techniques and negative punishment only if needed, but never positive punishment (spanking).
It's important to not discipline the child upon the debut of a problem behavior because children learn through trial and error. For instance, a child doesn't come out of the womb already knowing how to walk - they learn this through trial and error. Just the same, a child doesn't come out of the womb with a full understanding of ethics. So how can you punish a child if he didn't know the act was wrong? The first time an offense occurs, simply use induction. By disciplining them on the very first occurrence, it deters them from trying got learn via trial and error in the future. Of course, second offenses are grounds for discipline. It's also important to understand that learning takes place over time. Parents often get impatient and resort to positive punishment so they can see immediate results, but the long term benefits outweigh the short term. It's also important to pick your battles because a parent who is too controlling will stifle the child which can lead to lack of trust, autonomy, initiative, attachment, and self-esteem. The primary focus of discipline should always be to effectively condition the child, not to satisfy the parent's ego by exhorting control over an inferior being (this happens more than you'd think). The mark of a superior disciplinary is to implement effective discipline without ever letting the child forget they love them.
There are three primary parenting styles. The first is authoritarian (my father's style) - when the parents are demanding and unresponsive toward their child's needs and desires. This is the worst parenting style and can often end with children becoming moody, irritable, unhappy, fearful, and withdrawn. The second is permissive - where the parents are extremely tolerant and not demanding. They can either be indulgent, where they are more responsive to their child's needs or desires, or indifferent, where they are less responsive to their child's needs or desires. Permissive parenting often leads to immature and impulsive children. The third is authoritative (my mother's style) - where parents set clear standards for their child's behavior and are also responsive to their child's needs and desires. This is the best parenting style and children often end up cheerful, socially competent, energetic, and friendly. Here are some important aspects of a parent:
*Let your child know you love them.
*Listen to your child.
*Work with your child as much as possible as opposed to against them.
*Understand your child's age related cognitive abilities and limitations.
*Don't expect perfection.
There is much more to be said about this issue, but I will end here seeing as all the basics have been covered. Please excuse the lack of flow to this comment; I'm scribbling this comment between my classes.