- Oct 19, 2011
As somebody who's done a fair bit of study into behaviour management on children I'd have to agree, though I'm really on the fence with the whole thing it's generally better to make sure the child understands what they did wrong and punish by loss of privilege as opposed to violence.Omega 2521 said:I'm studying psychology at my university and I took a class a few semesters ago on developmental psychology. From what I read in that class, hitting a child is not only an ineffective form of punishment (they rarely can foresee the consequences of their actions if they even understand the concept of consequence), but can be terribly damaging to a child's mental state. A child may often learn to fear rather than respect a parent's authority which can damage the long term relationship with their parents and even develop self esteem and self efficacy issues.
Punishment is better often taught through other means such as the classic time out for the little ones or additional household chores if the child is a bit older. The reason parents will sometimes say these don't work is that the kid naturally rebels against the punishment and the parent does not have the strength of will or time to make the child follow through.
And beyond the psychological effects, hitting a child is sickening, how is hitting something that is both helpless against you and totally unaware that it has done something wrong ever justified? Should we hit someone with brain damage if they misbehave? Should we hit an Alzheimer's patient when they act out? No, and neither should we hit a child.
Also, parents should not play good cop bad cop or you just undermine each other
And two parents is better than one because when both respond to a childs behaviour in the same way it gives greater reinforcement of the intended message than if one adult responds.
I'd think of an example but fuck it. I'm leaving pedagogy anyway it's too much hard work for too little pay off.