From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Summaries of why some won't spank
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:09:14 GMT
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI


In article <1992Nov4.152359.8015@oakhill.sps.mot.com> millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com writes:
>
>I kept all responses anonymous......
>
>
>My parents spanked us on occasion, but I don't recall any specific
>situations.  My mother always explained that she felt spanking was
>appropriate as negative reinforcement to keep kids from doing things
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that are dangerous when they can't yet understand verbal explanations,
>or there's no time to explain.  Like when a toddler runs toward the
>street or reaches up to touch the top of the stove.
>

Negative reinforcement is a term I first heard used in operant conditioning
theory.  It is perhaps used with other meanings in other theories.  But,
within the context of the theory what is described in the paragraph above
is not negative reinforcement.  It is punishment.

From operant conditioning theory (stated in my own words):

Positive reinforcement is the introduction of a stimulus into a subject's
environment in response to an observed behavior on the part of the subject,
such that the frequency of the observed behaviour increases.
Example:  Hugging.        

Negative reinforcement is the removal of a stimulus from a subject's
environment in response to an observed behavior on the part of the subject,
such that the frequency of the observed behaviour increases.
Example:  Lifting a curfew.                       ^^^^^^^^^ yes, increases. 

Punishment is the introduction or removal of a stimulus into or from a subject's
environment in response to an observed behavior on the part of the subject,
such that the frequency of the observed behaviour decreases.
Example: scolding, revoking priviledges

The term reinforcement always implies an increase in the frequency of the 
behaviour.  A stimulus which does not increase the frequency of the behaviour
is not cnsidered to be a reinforcement regardless of how pleasureable it is
perceived to be.

The term punishment always implies a decrease in the frequency of the behaviour.If the frequency of the behaviour does not decrease the stimulus is not con-
sidered to be punishment regardless of how unpleasent it is perceived to be.

The term positive refers to the introduction (addition + ) of a stimulus,
regardless of the subject's response.

The term negative  refers to the remouval (subtraction -) of a stimulus,
regardless of the subject's response.

The terms positive and negative refer to  the action taken by the experimenter.
(Introduction or removal of a stimulus.)

The terms reinforcement and punishment refer to the subject's response.


I am not suggesting that a use at odds with these definitions in everyday 
speech is wrong.  These are clearly esoteric definitions.  But, they are
useful when trying to understand child behaviour, and how to infuence it.

Within the context of these esoteric definitions here is some food for thought:

Reinforcement has been found to be highly effectively at teaching new be-
haviours.  Applying this to child raising I conclude that rewarding a child
for good behaviour will be effective at teaching them to behave properly on
their own.  

Punishment has been found to be effective at eliminating specifically 
targetted behaviours.  Applying this result to child raising  would seem to 
indicate that punishment would be effective (regardless for the moment of the 
moral issues) at stopping children from engaging in certain specific mis-
behaviours.

In animal learning experiments punishment for all behaviours other than a 
specific targetted behaviour has never been successfully employed to teach a 
specific new behaviour.  Attempts to do so have resulted in neurotic
behavior on the part of the subject.  It has only been found to be effective at
eliminating targetted behaviours.  Reinforcement is required to increase the 
desired behaviour.  Applying this result to child raising indicates that 
punishing a child when they are bad, and ignoring them when they are good will
be harmful to the child.

Let me hasten to add the disclaimer that children are not raised under 
laboratory conditions.

However, I submit that barring physical injury, it is not whether or not 
spanking is used in raising a child that determines whether or not the child
is harmed.  It is the logic with which it or any other punishment is applied
within the context of the entirety of the child's relationship with the 
parent(s).