Discipline

views updated

Discipline

For many parents, the word discipline refers to punishment intended to decrease child misbehavior. In truth, the word is derived from disciplinare, referring to a system of teaching or instruction (Howard 1996). Although few would dispute the value of teaching children, the topic of parental discipline has long been controversial, even among experts. In the leading parenting book of the 1930s, Psychological Care of Infant and Child (1928), John B. Watson argued that mothers should avoid being nurturant with their children. Parental nurturance and common sense made a comeback with Benjamin Spock's Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care (1946). Discipline advice has changed from Watson's strict discipline to the permissiveness of the 1950s and 1960s to mixed messages (Forehand and McKinney 1993).

Two complementary perspectives of childrearing and parental discipline have been offered. The first perspective considers the kinds of parental discipline associated with moral thoughts and actions in normally developing children (e.g., Grusec and Kuczysnki 1997). The second perspective has focused on helping parents reduce disruptive behavior in clinically referred children, such as noncompliance, temper tantrums, defiance, and aggression (Briesmeister and Schaefer 1998; Serketich and Dumas 1996). The two perspectives complement each other concerning the goals of discipline, foundations for discipline, and proactive strategies for preventing discipline problems.

Goals of Discipline

Cognitive developmental psychologists have emphasized moral internalization and autonomy as important goals. Moral internalization is the process whereby children adopt a set of values as their own. Autonomy refers to children's growing ability to act independently. Developmental psychologists thus focus more on optimal development, such as prosocial behavior, and see problems when children comply too much with parents (Kuczynski and Hildebrandt 1997).

The goals of parent trainers using the second perspective, in contrast, have been to improve child compliance from deviant to normal rates while decreasing problem behaviors such as antisocial aggression (Roberts and Powers 1990). Note that an intermediate level of compliance is considered optimal from both perspectives. Some have criticized behavioral clinicians for their emphasis on child compliance (Houlihan et al. 1992; Kuczynski and Hildebrandt 1997). Noncompliance, however, is the most frequent complaint about clinically referred children (Forehand and McMahon 1981). Defiant noncompliance is a major risk factor for poor moral internalization as well as increased aggression, delinquency, and academic underachievement (Kochanska and Aksan 1995; Loeber and Schmaling 1985; Patterson, Reid, and Dishion 1992).

Foundations for Discipline

Cognitive developmental psychologists and behavioral parent trainers agree that the overall quality of the parent-child relationship is crucial for discipline. The relationship quality influences children's behavior directly as well as indirectly, by means of making disciplinary responses more effective.

Parental nurturance is the most crucial part of a good parent-child relationship. Disciplinary responses are more effective when parents consistently communicate love toward the child. Positive involvement, verbal and nonverbal expressions of love and concern, praise and encouragement for appropriate behavior, and calm responses to conflict all enhance moral development (Chamberlain and Patterson 1995; Kochanska and Thompson 1997; Pettit, Bates, and Dodge 1997, Rothbaum and Weisz 1994). Responding sensitively to child cues and encouraging child-directed play are two ways to express nurturance. Responding sensitively to an infant's cues makes a secure attachment to the parents more likely. A secure attachment, in turn, is associated with many aspects of appropriate development (Erickson, Sroufe, and Egeland 1985).

The more parents play with preschoolers, the fewer behavior problems appear later on (Pettit and Bates 1989). Frances Gardner (1994) found that conduct-problem children were less involved with their mothers in joint activity and constructive play. They watched more television, and they spent more time doing "nothing." Their mothers initiated fewer positive interactions and were less responsive to their children's initiatives.

Consistent with these findings, most behavioral parent training programs teach parents to initiate child-directed play times (Forehand 1993). Therapists coach parents to follow the child's lead; to describe, imitate, and praise the child's appropriate behavior; to mimic appropriate child talk; and to ignore minor misbehavior. They also train parents to avoid criticizing, instructing, or questioning during child-directed play (Hembree-Kigin and McNeil 1995). Cooperating with children's initiatives at such times has been shown to enhance their cooperating with parents at other times (Parpal and Maccoby 1985).

Proactive Discipline

Proactive discipline builds on a foundation of nurturance with specific strategies to promote appropriate behavior and to prevent inappropriate behavior. When mothers use proactive strategies as well as just reacting to misbehavior, their children behave more appropriately (Gardner et al. 1999). Cognitive developmental psychologists and behavioral parent trainers have emphasized different kinds of proactive discipline skills.

George Holden (1985) studied specific proactive strategies for two-year-old children during shopping trips. Mothers shopped when the store was not busy and when the child was not hungry or tired. Among other things they instructed the child ahead of time, kept the child occupied, and diverted attention away from tempting items.

Proactive strategies can be taught. For example, Matthews Sanders and Mark Dadds (1982) trained parents to plan daily activities, which reduced deviant child behavior in most families. Another strategy states that parents can reward a disliked activity (e.g., cleaning one's room) with a desired activity (e.g., playing outdoors).

Child behavior can also be improved simply by improving parental instructions or requests (Green, Forehand, and McMahon 1979; Roberts et al. 1978). Child cooperation is more likely when parental instructions are direct and specific, and designate a one-step task that the child is capable of (Hembree-Kigin and McNeil 1995; Houlihan 1994). Instructions are also more effective if phrased positively (do versus don't) and followed by a five-second pause (Houlihan and Jones 1990; Patterson 1982).

"Catching them being good" is another important aspect of proactive discipline. Parents of well-behaved children tend to recognize and praise appropriate behavior more than do parents of disruptive children (Grusec and Goodnow 1994). Every time a parent misses an opportunity to catch a child being good, they miss a chance to teach that child appropriate behavior (Christophersen 1988). As a result, parental attention to misbehavior may be more rewarding to children than being ignored when they are behaving appropriately (Shriver and Allen 1996).

Prime opportunities to learn new abilities were called the "zone of proximal development" by Lev Vygotsky (Vygotsky [1934] 1987). He noted that new abilities are learned one step at a time. Parents can facilitate children's learning by first demonstrating a new skill, asking leading questions, introducing the first parts of the new skill, and then giving the children more independence in performing the skill. Such skillful coaching by parents may enhance children's social skills and thereby their popularity.

Monitoring children's activities is another important proactive strategy. Supervision tends to prevent delinquency and drug abuse while enhancing popularity and scholastic achievement (Chamberlain and Patterson 1995). Monitoring takes different forms depending on the child's age. During the preteenage years, the important dimensions of monitoring include parental involvement and responsiveness. Later, knowing an adolescent's whereabouts and activities becomes a more important aspect of monitoring, reflecting an appropriate balance between parental influence and the teenager's growing independence.

Discipline Responses

In an ideal world a positive parent-child relationship and proactive discipline would be enough to prevent all misbehavior. Unfortunately, only about 6 percent of even well-educated families accomplish this by the time the child is 4 years old (Baumrind 1971). Opinions differ greatly as to how the other 94 percent should respond to misbehavior.

Cognitive developmental psychologists recommend disciplinary reasoning, while avoiding negative consequences as much as possible (Grusec and Kuczysnki 1997). In contrast, behavioral parent trainers recommend the opposite in applying consistent consequences such as a time-out or privilege removal while minimizing verbal discipline (Briesmeister and Schaefer 1998).

The cognitive developmental recommendation comes from studies showing that parents of well-behaved children rely more on reasoning, whereas the parents of poorly behaved children rely more on punishment of various kinds (Grusec and Goodnow 1994). In contrast, behavioral parent trainers criticize this approach, and feel that parents who rely too much on reasoning risk giving children more attention when they misbehave than when they behave appropriately (Blum et al. 1995). Contingent use of negative consequences— such as a time-out—is a crucial component for training these parents to manage their children's behavior more effectively.

Attribution theory provides a popular explanation of why parents of well-behaved children rely more on milder disciplinary responses. If appropriate behavior occurs without forceful parental influences, then children are more likely to attribute their behavior to their own internal motivations (e.g., "I want to behave appropriately"), thereby enhancing their internalization of those moral standards (Lepper 1983). Attribution theory assumes, however, that parents can make their children behave appropriately without being obvious about it. Cognitive developmentalists have not explained how mild disciplinary responses—such as reasoning—acquire their effectiveness in producing appropriate behavior. Nonetheless, they often recommend that parents use mild disciplinary tactics, such as reasoning, while avoiding negative consequences as much as possible (Kochanska and Thompson 1997; Pettit, Bates, and Dodge 1997). Mothers of two- and three-year-old children who followed that advice, however, witnessed an increased rate of disruptive behavior during the preschool years, while their peers' rates decreased (Larzelere et al. 1998). In contrast, the largest decrease in disruptive behavior occurred when mothers used frequent reasoning, but backed reasoning with negative consequences at least 10 percent of the time.

This finding may result from two factors. First, reasoning is more effective at decreasing the recurrence of misbehavior when combined with a negative consequence (Larzelere et al. 1996). Second, reasoning becomes more effective by itself after it has been combined with a negative consequence such as a time-out or privilege removal (Larzelere et al. 1998). By making reasoning more effective by itself, this process fulfills a prerequisite for attributions to enhance moral internalization when children start making adult-like attributions around six years of age.

Consistent with this, several studies have found that reasoning is more effective at an intermediate intensity than if used matter-of-factly. The intermediate intensity could be achieved by verbal firmness or by an accompanying negative consequence (Larzelere and Merenda 1994). When used in these ways, reasoning has consistently been an effective disciplinary response, whereas matter-of-fact reasoning is only average in its effectiveness. Thus, both reasoning and negative consequences have appropriate roles in optimal discipline. Combining reasoning with consequences when necessary stands in contrast to a sole preference for one to the exclusion of the other, which is sometimes recommended by cognitive developmental psychologists or behavioral parent trainers.

Consistent use of negative consequences is particularly crucial for children with severe behavior problems. After working extensively with anti-social children, Gerald Patterson (1982) concluded that the most important component of treatment is to teach their parents how to use nonphysical negative consequences more effectively. He was referring to time-outs, privilege removal, and grounding.

The most effective parent-training programs teach parents to use a specific time-out procedure as a consequence for critical misbehaviors (Barkley 1997; Hembree-Kigin and McNeil 1995). Although the effectiveness of time-outs for reducing misbehavior is well-documented in a variety of settings and behaviors, it can be difficult for parents to implement appropriately (Shriver and Allen 1996). Typical guidelines for time-outs include: (1) start with only a few types of misbehavior; (2) make sure children understand what is expected of them; (3) use one, and only one, warning; (4) take the child immediately to the time-out location, such as a chair in a safe, boring place; (5) set a timer for a maximum of five minutes; and (6) require the child to follow the original instruction upon completion of the time-out (Danforth 1998). Some behavioral parent trainers replace Guideline #5 with a requirement for sitting quietly at least momentarily. The quiet requirement is then gradually increased to one to five minutes (Shriver and Allen 1996).

Children sometimes refuse to follow the timeout procedure when it is first used. Practicing the entire procedure before can be helpful. Many children, however, require a backup to enforce timeout compliance (Danforth 1998; Hembree-Kigin and McNeil 1995). The most effective backups have been either two swats with an open hand to the buttocks (for children from two to six years of age) or putting the child in a room with the door closed for one minute (Roberts and Powers 1990). Withdrawing privileges or adding chores are preferable backup strategies for older children (Forgatch and Patterson 1989). If a child does not comply with the time-out procedure after six successive backup repetitions, then parents should consider an alternative back-up tactic or seek help from a mental health professional experienced in behavioral parent training (Roberts and Powers 1990).

Privilege removal or grounding has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing misbehavior (Pazulinec, Meyerrose, and Sajwaj 1983), but other studies have found that parents rarely use them (Ritchie 1999). In one interesting variation of grounding, Edward Christophersen (1988) required an older child to complete a specified job in order to terminate the grounding. Then the child can work productively toward ending the grounding rather than manipulating the parents.

Overcorrection is an innovative disciplinary tactic that encompasses two different procedures, restitution and positive practice (Axelrod, Brantner, and Meddock 1978). Restitution requires the child to restore the situation as it was prior to the misbehavior. Positive practice involves repetitive practice of an appropriate behavior to replace the problem behavior. Overcorrection has been used successfully to teach academic and toileting skills, and to reduce aggressive behavior (Azrin, Sneed, and Foxx 1973; Lenz, Singh, and Hewett 1991; Matson et al. 1979). For example, Christina Adams and Mary Lou Kelley (1992) found that a brief restitution (apology) and positive practice (doing or saying something nice) significantly reduced sibling aggression. They concluded that overcorrection and time-outs were equivalent in efficacy, but parents rated overcorrection as more acceptable.

Restraint and distraction are often used with young preschoolers. They are usually effective in putting an immediate stop to the misbehavior. They are also reasonably effective in delaying recurrences of similar misbehavior when combined with reasoning (Larzelere and Merenda 1994). However, backing up reasoning with restraint or distraction does not enhance subsequent reasoning in preschoolers as clearly as do nonphysical consequences (Larzelere 2001).

Conditional Sequence of Responses

A conditional sequence approach is one of the few attempts to combine cognitive developmental and parent-training recommendations for disciplinary responses (Larzelere 2001). First, a sound foundation should be established with parental nurturance and proactive strategies. A parent's goal should then be to establish reasoning as an effective discipline response by itself during the preschool years. Negative consequences should be used primarily to enforce verbal corrections and rationales as effective discipline responses, beginning at least by two years of age.

For example, a possible sequence of discipline responses to a preschooler's misbehavior might consist of the following steps: (1) getting the child's attention; (2) issuing a verbal directive; (3) presenting an age-appropriate rationale; (4) one warning of a time-out; (5) using a time-out; (6) one warning of a backup for the time-out; and (7) using the backup (e.g., two-swat spank or brief room isolation; Roberts and Powers 1990). For targeted or severe misbehaviors, the sequence would be followed until compliance or a mutually acceptable negotiation. Less severe misbehaviors (e.g., irritations) might be ignored rather than over-using this sequence of disciplinary tactics. Research has shown that the later steps in this sequence improve the effectiveness of the earlier steps by themselves in later discipline encounters (Larzelere et al. 1998; Roberts and Powers 1990). Once the earlier steps become effective, the later steps are rarely needed.

There are several considerations relevant to the effectiveness of this sequence of disciplinary responses. First, the sequence needs to be used flexibly, adapting it to the situation and the child. Second, parents should avoid overusing negative consequences, because they can become less effective the more frequently they are used. Parents who reserve negative consequences for more important misbehaviors tend to get better results than those who overuse them for minor misbehaviors. Third, children sometimes need to be allowed to negotiate what they do in an appropriate way. For example, a child might ask politely to take five minutes to complete an activity before getting ready for bed. Fourth, parents need to be sober and in control of their emotions. Unpredictable, explosive disciplinary responses are consistently associated with detrimental child outcomes (Chamberlain and Patterson 1995; Straus and Mouradian 1998). Finally, if spanking is used (e.g., as a backup for time-outs with two- to six-yearolds), it should never leave marks other than temporary redness. Its use is empirically supported primarily as a backup for milder disciplinary tactics such as time-out with two- to six-year-old children by loving parents in control of their emotions (Larzelere 2000).

Conclusion

Parental discipline is a complex responsibility. Those parents who are successful develop an appropriate foundation for discipline, provide good strategies for proactive discipline, and use effective but nonabusive disciplinary responses.

Successful parents also find their own authoritative balance of love and limits, avoiding the extremes of overly permissive or overly punitive discipline. Yet a range of authoritative approaches all work well. Somewhat strict parenting works reasonably well as long as it is clearly motivated by love and concern. Fairly permissive parenting also works as long as parents can enforce important limits with reasonable methods when needed.

Bibliography

adams, c. d., and kelley, m. l. (1992). "managing siblingaggression: overcorrection as an alternative to time-out." behavior therapy 23(4):707–717.

axelrod, s.; brantner, j. p.; and meddock, t. d. (1978)."overcorrection: a review and critical analysis." journal of special education 12(4):367–392.

azrin, n. h.; sneed, t. j.; and foxx, r. m. (1973). "drybed: a rapid method of eliminating bedwetting (enuresis) of the retarded." behaviour research and therapy 11(4):427–434.

barkley, r. a. (1997). defiant children: a clinician'smanual for assessment and parent training, 2nd edition. new york: guilford.

baumrind, d. (1971). "harmonious parents and theirpreschool children." developmental psychology 4: 99–102.

blum, n. j.; williams, g. e.; friman, p. c.; and christophersen, e. r. (1995). "disciplining young children: the role of verbal instructions and reasoning." pediatrics 96:336–341.

briesmeister, j. m., and schaefer, c. e. (1998). handbook of parent training. new york: wiley

chamberlain, p., and patterson, g. r. (1995). "discipline and child compliance in parenting." in handbook of parenting, vol 4: applied and practical parenting, ed. m. h. bornstein. mahwah, nj: lawrence erlbaum associates.

christophersen, e. r. (1988). little people: guidelines forcommon sense child rearing, 3rd edition. kansas city, mo: westport.

danforth, j. s. (1998). "the behavior management flowchart: a component analysis of behavior management strategies." clinical psychology review 18: 229–257.

erickson, m. f.; sroufe, l. a.; and egeland, b. (1985). "therelationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample." monographs of the society for research in child development 50(1–2):147–166.

forehand, r. (1993). "twenty years of research on parenting: does it have practical implications for clinicians working with parents and children?" clinical psychologist 46(4):169–176.

forehand, r., and mckinney, b. (1993). "historicaloverview of child discipline in the united states: implications for mental health clinicians and researchers." journal of child and family studies 2(3): 221–228.

forehand, r. l., and mcmahon, f. j. (1981). helping thenoncompliant child. new york: guilford.

forgatch, m., and patterson, g. (1989). parents and adolescents: living together. eugene, or: castalia.

gardner, f. e.; sonuga-barke, e. j.; and sayal, k. (1999)."parents anticipating misbehaviour: an observational study of strategies parents use to prevent conflict with behaviour problem children." journal of child psychology and psychiatry and allied disciplines 40(8):1185–1196.

gardner, f. e. m. (1994). "the quality of joint activity between mothers and their children with behavior problems." journal of child psychology and psychiatry and allied disciplines 35:935–948.

green, k. d.; forehand, r.; and mcmahon, r. j. (1979)."parental manipulation of compliance and noncompliance in normal and deviant children." behavior modification 3:245–266.

grusec, j., and kuczysnki, l., eds. (1997). parenting andchildren's internalization of values. new york: wiley.

grusec, j. e., and goodnow, j. j. (1994). "impact ofparental discipline methods on the child's internalization of values: a reconceptualization of current points of view." developmental psychology 30:4–19.

hembree-kigin, t. l., and mcneil, c. b. (1995). parent-child interaction therapy. new york: plenum.

holden, g. w. (1985). "how parents create a social environment via proactive behavior." in children within environments: toward a psychology of accident prevention, ed. t. garling and j. valsinger. new york: plenum.

houlihan, d. (1994). "assessing childhood noncompliance: subtle differences in one-step commands and their effects on response topography." child and family behavior therapy 16:9–20.

houlihan, d., and jones, r. n. (1990). "exploring the reinforcement of compliance with 'do' and 'don't' requests and the side effects: a partial replication and extension." psychological reports 67:439–448.

houlihan, d.; sloane, h. n.; jones, r. n.; and patten, c.(1992). "a review of behavioral conceptualizations and treatments of child noncompliance." education and treatment of children 15(1):56–77.

howard, b. j. (1996). "advising parents on discipline:what works." pediatrics 98:809–815.

kochanska, g., and aksan, n. (1995). "mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early internalization." child development 66:236–254.

kochanska, g., and thompson, r. a. (1997). "the emergence and development of conscience in toddlerhood and early childhood." in parenting and children's internalization of values, ed. j. e. grusec and l. kuczynski. new york: wiley.

kuczynski, l., and hildebrandt, n. (1997). "models of conformity and resistance in socialization theory." in parenting and children's internalization of values, ed. j. e. grusec and l. kuczynski. new york: wiley.

larzelere, r. e. (2000). "child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: anupdated literature review." clinical child and family psychology review 3(4):199–221.

larzelere, r. e. (2001). "combining love and limits in authoritative parenting." in parenthood in america, ed. j. c. westman. madison: university of wisconsin press.

larzelere, r. e., and merenda, j. a. (1994). "the effectiveness of parental discipline for toddler misbehavior at different levels of child distress." family relations 43:480–488.

larzelere, r. e.; sather, p. r.; schneider, w. n.; larson, d.b.; and pike, p. l. (1998). "punishment enhances reasoning's effectiveness as a disciplinary response to toddlers." journal of marriage and the family 60: 388–403.

larzelere, r. e.; schneider, w. n.; larson, d. b.; and pike,p. l. (1996). "the effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences." child and family behavior therapy 18:35–57.

lenz, m.; singh, n. n.; and hewett, a. e. (1991). "overcorrection as an academic remediation procedure: a review and reappraisal." behavior modification 15(1):64–73.

lepper, m. r. (1983). "social-control processes and the internalization of social values: an attributional perspective." in social cognition and social development: a sociocultural perspective, ed. e. t. higgins, d. n. ruble, and w. w. hartup. cambridge: cambridge university press.

loeber, r., and schmaling, k. b. (1985). "empirical evidence for overt and covert patterns of antisocial conduct problems: a meta-analysis." journal of abnormal child psychology 13:337–352.

matson, j. l.; horne, a. m.; ollendick, d. g.; and ollendick, t. h. (1979). "overcorrection: a further evaluation of restitution and positive practice." journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 10(4): 295–298.

parpal, m., and maccoby, e. (1985). "maternal responsiveness and subsequent child compliance." child development 56:1326–1344.

patterson, g. r. (1982). coercive family process. eugene,or: castalia.

patterson, g. r.; reid, j. b.; and dishion, t. j. (1992). antisocial boys. eugene, or: castalia.

pazulinec, r.; meyerrose, m.; and sajwaj, t., eds. (1983).punishment via response cost. new york: academic press.

pettit, g. s., and bates, j. e. (1989). "family interaction patterns and children's behavior problems from infancy to four years." developmental psychology 25:413–420.

pettit, g. s.; bates, j. e.; and dodge, k. a. (1997). "supportive parenting, ecological context, and children's adustment: a seven-year longitudinal study." child development 68(5):908–923.

ritchie, k. l. (1999). "maternal behaviors and cognitions during discipline episodes: a comparison of power bouts and single acts of noncompliance." developmental psychology 35:580–589.

roberts, m. w.; mcmahon, r. j.; forehand, r.; andhumphreys, l. (1978). "the effect of parental instruction-giving on child compliance." behavior therapy 9:793–798.

roberts, m. w., and powers, s. w. (1990). "adjusting chairtimeout enforcement procedures for oppositional children." behavior therapy 21:257–271.

rothbaum, f., and weisz, j. r. (1994). "parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: a meta-analysis." psychological bulletin 116:55–74.

sanders, m. r., and dadds, m. r. (1982). "effects ofplanned activities and child management procedures in parent-training: an analysis of setting generality." behavior therapy 13:452–461.

serketich, w. j., and dumas, j. e. (1996). "the effectiveness of behavioral parent training to modify antisocial behavior in children: a metaanalysis." behavior therapy 27:171–186.

shriver, m. d., and allen, k. d. (1996). the time-outgrid: a guide to effective discipline. school psychology quarterly 11(1):67–75.

spock, b. (1946). the common sense book of baby andchild care. new york: duell, sloan and pearce.

straus, m. a., and mouradian, v. e. (1998). "impulsivecorporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children." behavioral sciences and the law 16:353–374.

vygotsky, l. s. [1934] (1987). "thinking and speech." inthe collected works of l. s. vygotsky, vol. 1: problems of general psychology, ed. r. w. rieber and a. s. carton. reprint, new york: plenum.

watson, j. b. (1928). psychological care of infant andchild. new york: norton.

robert e. larzelere brett r. kuhn

International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family