Having been blessed with a gorgeous granddaughter who is now 1, I've been reflecting on our rather passionate discussion in OLO about 'smacking' :) as a means of discipline.

But much more than that, I've been observing her, and how the 'alternative' approach offered by some 'trendy' thinkers, such as "distract them from the bad behavior and give them something positive to do"

-Congratulate them when they do good. Ignore them when they do bad.
-Re-inforce the good behavior, and distract them from the bad.

THE WORD ...."NO"

Lets say a child does the wrong thing. The most common I note is 'lashing out' at things which don't go their way. If you don't want the particular cuddly toy.. you whack it.. push it away...and make a kind of 'no way' sound.

So far all is pretty managable.

But a point comes, when this lashing out, physical message "I don't want" can impact on others. The puppy...the kitten.. the twin brother etc...

So.. should we add to the word "NO" the following:

No...thats BAD....
No.. that 'hurts' the kitty.
No.. thats 'bad' BECAUSE it hurts the kitty.

Ok.. lets avoid the word "NO"..and approach it like this. '

"Dear, kitty likes to be stroked and patted, not hit on the head with your bottle"

Again.. this 'might' work, but if the child has taken a liking to the sense of 'power' she derives from making the kitty cower..hmmmm.. it raises the question of evaluating the violent behavior and expressing it in 'moral' terms.

QUESTION.. do you agree or disagree with the proposition that we can assign moral judgements to behavior?

Yes..thats 'GOOD'.... (as opposed to 'enjoyable, productive')
No.. thats 'BAD' (as opposed to simply 'hurtful, unproductive')

Do words like 'unproductive' or 'hurtful' twang at our conscience?

How is 'conscience' developed in the area of moral right and wrong?

Should we speak more of 'child compliance' than 'right and wrong' ?

Does 'compliance' connect to 'conscience'?

Any useful info from academic studies would be welcome.

'Positive Reinforcement' training works well for dogs, why not kids?. Kids don't come out speaking english. So 'NO' makes zero sense to them until they understand what the consequences are for 'ignoring' 'no'. Instead of concentrating on the consequences of the negative, why not reward the positive?.

As for smacking. Ya know this thread is gonna go that way again, but there is always a line that illegally persons can cross that becomes abuse. A 'smack' works for some and not for others. Try all other options then smacking last.

I quite agree.. 100% with all that STG.

but positive reinforcment alone... hmm I don't think that's the answer. (I feel it does depend on age largely. A 1 yr old doesn't understand morality,only consequences)

Lets take the issue of when one child Johnny spits on another, -Jimmy.
(They are both 3 yrs old)

Do we......

1/ Distract the offending child, give him something more worthy to do. (which they do until ur gone and then back to annoying Jimmy)

2/ Scold the child verbally, and ask them how they would feel if someone spat on them.

Johnny...NO!...don't spit on Jimmy, thats (fill in the blank)
-evil/bad/wrong
-unpleasant for Jimmy.
-If you do that Jimmy might spit back on you, or whack you with the nearest blunt object.
-If you do that 'people' will look down on you.
-All of the above.

3/ Scold plus Let Jimmy spit on Johnny so he knows how it feels?

It seems to me that unless Johnny knows and is taught that spitting on Jimmy is actually 'wrong' for reasons other than it annoys Jimmy, his conscience won't be set up correctly for knowing 'wrong and right' behavior... He will indeed develop a 'survival, self interest' type conscience, (if I spit on others, they might spit on me) but not a 'moral' compass of inherrent right and wrong. (spitting on others is morally wrong)

Of course, in all this I have my usual agenda :) but don't accuse me of 'bait and switch' Pericles... you already know where I go with this kind of thing :)

David, I've not yet managed to track down the underlying research papers yet :(

Murray Straus recently presented the findings of research which shows a causal relationship between being smacked as kids and the likleyhood of sexual violence and risky sexual violence as adults. He has also commented on subject of the effectiveness of other methods of discipline in a number of the articles I've seen. His view is "other research shows spanking is not more effective than other discipline methods"

You can start with
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=387982
"Widely considered the foremost researcher in his field, Straus presented his research findings at the American Psychological Association's Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships. "

and
"Furthermore, because other research shows spanking is not more effective than other discipline methods, there is no need to expose children to the harmful effects of spanking. We can help prevent mental health problems and relationship violence by a national health policy recommending never spanking," he says.

As someone who grew up with smacking and has smacked as a parent I consider these findings serious enough to change my views on the topic. It's an unnecessary risk to my childs well being.

R0bert

Boazy, you are for some reason connecting smacking a child with saying "no" and providing an explanation. Many parents do not do the former, for good reason. I imagine most do the latter.

They're not the same thing.

Or are you saying that parents need to choose between saying no to a child and distracting them? Is there some reason why you think parents can't do both. For example, tell a child not to spit on others, ask them to apologise, then move on to another activity?

I'm confused about the distinction you're trying to make.