Effective Discipline for Children

¶ … Discipline for Children

Understanding effective parental discipline, defined as social projection of parents' concepts onto their children, their impact and hence its development in the children's mind, comes under a number of mechanisms and paradigms of research literature. They range from learning theories, morality theories, and parental styles of social delivery to socio cultural cum environmental approach (Halpenny, et al., 2010).

According to Clinton and Sibcy (2006), it is deemed that children are emotionally sensitive parts of the society who need parents, care, leadership, love and nurturing from someone whose primary duty is to take care of the child. According to the authors, it is possible that some decisions undertaken by the guardians in the name of love may result into deteriorative outcomes detested by the children and may form a bad effect on their lives. Following is a table (p. 6) extracted from Clinton and Sibcy defining different traits of different parents with different school of thought:

PARENTS WHO GIVE HEALTHY LOVE

PARENTS WHO OVERPROTECT

PARENTS WHO OVERCONTROL

PARENTS WHO OVERINDULGE

See children as gifts

See children as fragile

See children as little versions of themselves

See children as possessions

Nurture kids to be unique

Nurture kids to be safe

Nurture kids to be perfect

Nurture kids to be entitled

Are respectful and supportive

Lack respect and are overly supportive

Lack respect for their child

Are overly supportive

Are kind and firm

Are kind, not firm

Are firm, not kind

Are kind, not firm

View mistakes as opportunities to learn

Allow no opportunity for mistakes

Allow no opportunity for mistakes

Believe mistakes do not matter

Give appropriate supervision

Give too much supervision

Give directions and commands

Give no supervision

Encourage feelings and teach empathy

Avoid unpleasant feelings

Do not encourage feelings

Believe feelings are everything

Teach living skills

Teach fearfulness

Teach driven-ness

Teach Laziness

Get into their child's world

Censor and pry into their child's world

Force their child to enter their world

Let their child rule the world

Teach balance of grace and biblical truth

Teach that the world is dangerous

Teach a theology of works and performance

Teach pride and selfishness

Understanding parental nurturing and discipline is important. Most of the information is extracted from social and learning theory, which is followed by the above table very well. According to this theory, in a wider perspective, children adopt the habits for which they are rewarded and leave the ones they are punished on. This depicts the pattern of socialization in context to parental guidance on behavior. The theory is aligned with the same instinct of the child's behavior development with what that behavior brings (Eisenberg and Valiente, 2002).

Domjan (2000) has evaluated considerable information about the behavior of a child in relation to a punishment. A child naturally avoids practicing behavior that results into punishment or at least lessens its frequency. However, it is of severe importance that the changes brought about by the acts of punishment deliver special projections on the behavior of a child. A child needs to be under constant supervision in these situations to narrow the behavioral track to the required behavior.

The widespread perspective of practicing punishments also causes an unlimited or uncontrollable level of punishments that may result into injuries or abuse rather than disciplinary action. This is due to the perception of punishment as the required element for a perfect child's behavior and socialization (Holden, 2002). Bandura (1986) suggests that social, cultural and environmental projections are the basis of behavioral patterns of the children.

It is the parents' responsibility and naturally the parents' or guardians' behavior that moulds child's mind. Children exhibit from their behavior what they have learned from their guardians and the society, along with the set of examples of practices that are punishable (Eisenberg and Valiente, 2002). Moreover, as suggested by Straus (1991), punishments of physical form if not supervised correctly bring a hard, aggressive and vigilant character in the children.

Undoubtedly, Punishments do not mean discipline. Nevertheless, the process of internalization is adopted by children to understand their parents' behavior, motives, and values (Grusec and Goodnow, 1994). Internal motivation and confidence is developed by mental projections of social behavior, as addressed by Hoffman (2000) in theory of moral internalization.

It is suggested that children interprets socialization through the encounters of discipline with the parents which invokes the process of internalization. The marks of this internalization are taken as child's interpretation of socialization and discipline is depicted by the behavioral traits of the child (Hoffman, 2000). Motivating and stimulating the process of internalization can bring ability for the child to understand social elements without pressures of punishments, which eliminates the need for external pressures through moral, emotional and logical negotiations and discussions. In addition to this, punishments happen to be either negatively impacting or do not impact at all Grusec and Goodnow (1994).

It is suggested by Smith et al. (2005) that pressure exceeding a moderate level can bring negative changes in character and behavioral traits of the children, thus, depriving them of motivation and deteriorating mental development, which is integral to internalization. Moreover, it disturbs the understanding between parents and children. On the contrary, it is suggested that low punishments can result into indifference as well. Similarly, it is claimed by Thompson and Kochanska (1997) that pressure, punishments and use of force develop nervousness, stress and lack of confidence in the child, hence, killing motivation and self-respect, and weakens parental message. It is concluded by different scholars that a combined strategy should be employed to ensure right proportion of induction and punishment for the children to seed internalization. This enhances discipline, compliance, good behavior and self-respect through proper internalization and socialization (Grusec and Goodnow, 1994).

According to the conceptual framework of Martin and Maccoby (1983) and Baumrind (1971 and 1991), parental behavior in children encountering have two different sides. One side depicts the inductive behavior of the parents focusing on warmth and emotions during the encounters, while the other side depicts the pressure side focusing on punishments during encounters.

authoritarian (higher-control level, lower-responsive levels);

authoritative (higher-control levels, higher-responsive levels);

permissive-neglectful (lower-control levels, lower-responsive levels);

permissive-indulgent (lower-control levels, higher-responsive levels).

Factors that influence effective discipline

Dr. Cloud documented a case study in his book revealing significant facts about parent-child encounters. Allison was a mother to fourteen-year-old Cameron, whom the doctor found to be cleaning Cameron's room. Dr. Cloud told Allison that it was sad to see Allison doing what Cameron should do herself. Allison showed connection to what Dr. had to say and replied with her concern for future of her son and his future family that she never thought about it. Dr. asked in his book to the parents who are practicing the same as Allison does about their concerns for the shaping of their children's future. Dr. claims that a person is destined with how he behaves (Cloud and Townsend, 2001).

According to Dr. Cloud character traits of a person, his abilities and capacities, morality and school of thought, socialization and relationships are the primary determinants of his destiny. To understand one's character it is important to assess personal traits, understanding about oneself, weaknesses, strengths, threats and talents. Parents can look into themselves and their child for the issues. They can remove their weaknesses that have been identified, enhancing their abilities already figured out, hence designing themselves and their child for the better destiny. The aim of every parent is to provide a path for their children, which leads them to their correct destiny and keep them aligned to this path (Cloud and Townsend, 2001).

The character development process requires understanding of three major elements that play considerable role. They are child's state of mind, parents' state of mind and interactive social variables. However, understanding the interaction of these variables is a tedious and complex task due to their nature and alignment of social and natural influences (Halpenny, et al., 2010).

Influence of child attributes

Parental attitudes have been discussed widely in past few decades. Nowadays, influence of children on their parents' behavior is studied, hence giving it a two way perspective or child effect (Bugental and Goodnow, 1998, p. 389). It was depicted by Holden et al. (1997) that how 3/4ths of the mothers claimed change in behaviors due to physical punishment to their children. This placed a definite projection on their minds, establishing relation of the punishment encounters with the characteristics of family and parents with their children.

Differentiating the study on respect of gender, it has been found that however the results are inconsistent (Woodward and Fergusson, 2002; Holden et al., 1997), male children are found to be more vulnerable to physical punishments rather girls, with harsh behavior and strict limits (Dietz, 2000 and Kanoy et al., 2003). A pattern of inconsistent results is achieved if studies of Ritchie (2002), Nobes et al., (1999) and Simons et al., (1991) are considered. Parents punished boys more often than girls, which ranged from strict extent of punishment for boys and rather warm encounters with the girls.

In accordance with the child's age, reponses of parental discipline vary. Studies show us that younger children experience more physical punishments in comparison which older age children (Dietz, 2000; Ghate et al., 2003). Nevertheless, it is also noted that, older age children face, in comparison to younger children, more strict physical punishments than younger children (Nobes and Smith, 2002; Straus and Stewart, 1999). Utilization of physical punishment is common among pre-school age children and toddlers, in North America and UK (Clement et al., 2000; Ghate et al., 2003). According to Durrant (2005), reason behind this high level of disciplinary problems in these ages is because of the combination of age-based influences resulted in demonstration of independence and exploration, along with the element of negativism, impulsive as well as little or no understanding of danger and harm.

Misdemeanours of certain children may result in high level and strict physical punishments as disciplinary response. These responses are highly dependent on the culture, that is, values and norms of a culture. Different studies conducted in USA and UK indicates that, aggression and self-endangerment are most common behaviours that results in physical punishments and are sometimes considered acceptable as a disciplinary response (Durrant, 1996; Ghate et al., 2003; Holden et al., 1999). Behaviour that mostly likely results in physical punishment as reported by Smith et al. (2005) are once which are against moral codes, challenges control and authority of parents, or actions that possesses danger other or the child. Thus, it is more likely that, children losing their temper easily are subject to physical punishment. Furthermore, circumstances in which disciplining incident have occurred and at time of misbehaviour, natures of exchange are two most important things to predict physical punishment as means of disciplinary response. As an example, Socolar et al. (1999), when primary response fails and parental anger is at severe levels, usually as secondary response, slapping is used as a disciplinary action.

Interpretation of the children's behaviour by their parents makes the behaviour of children acceptable or intolerable (Bugental and Happaney, 2002). Response of parents regarding disciplinary incidents depends upon the attributes and perceptions that parents makes about their children characteristics, that is, if a parent tends to have a hostile attributes and perceptions regarding their children, this may result in punitive way of parenting (MacKinnon-Lewis et al., 1992). For instance, children considered to be aggressive and responsible for what they do, are likely to be considered worthy of corporeal punishment. Moreover, children in elementary schools and pre-schools showing aggressive behaviour results in negative parent cognitions and emotions, which ultimately results in more negative or strict parenting methods (Miller, 1995). Unexpected and ambiguous events may also set to motion parental attributional process. According to Bugental and Happaney (2002), adults having attributional style with low-power (i.e. they believe that, they have less power when it comes to care-giving relationships in comparison to their children) exhibits defensive patterns when it comes to responding children's undesirable behaviour. According to this viewpoint, the reposes regarding parental attributional processes are set to motion when a relevant event happens in a care-giving environment. This process also serves as to mediate or moderate parental disciplinary responses.

Parental styles may also depend upon the patterns of parental attributions. Situation where a child depicts negative behaviour, an authoritarian mother will be less focused on emotions and understanding the behaviour and aggression due to external source, in comparison authoritative mother (Coplan et al., 2002). In almost all scenarios related to child-rearing, an authoritarian mother will mostly respond with embarrassment and anger. In accordance with the above findings, it is suggested that authoritative and authoritarian mothers have different emotional response patterns. That is, they are different in almost every aspects of child-rearing process. However, in many challenging situations regarding child-rearing, put empathises on different cognitive reactions regarding authoritarian vs. authoritative mothers.

To summarize, use of corporal punishment depends upon many different factor regarding characteristics of a child. One of the most important developments in child is when he exclusively relies on his parent. At this stage of life, child's behaviour and characteristics are influenced by parental disciplinary responses. There are inconsistency in results, when considering factors like age and gender, to explain variations in different disciplinary responses linking it to physical punishments. There are few studies suggesting that, in comparison with girls, boys are more often victims of physical punishments. However, there are few studies showing no such effect of gender on disciplinary responses. Likewise, there are many studies reporting high occurrence of corporal punishment in young children that is, in early childhood stage. However, there are few studies which suggest that older children are more strictly and severely punished. It is significant to mention that, interpretation of parents regarding behaviours and action of their children plays an important role initiating different disciplinary responses. Punitive parenting may result due to parent's hostile attribution that parent associate with his child (Halpenny, et al., 2010).

Influence of Parent attributes

There are many characteristic, associated with parental styles, which may approve or disapprove use of physical punishment. Finding form many studies are doubtful, regarding gender of parents effecting disciplinary response. Few researchers suggest that there are no gender variations (Hemenway et al., 1994; Murphy-Cowan and Stringer, 1999; Nobes et al., 1999); on the other hand few studies prpose that, in comparison to father, mother uses more corporal punishments (Giles-Sims et al., 1995; Dietz, 2000; Durrant et al., 1999). It has also been indicated that, parents of young age are more likely to utilize corporal punishments (Giles-Sims et al., 1995; Dietz, 2000; Durrant et al., 1999). Culture variations that is, beliefs of parents may also influence the kind of disciplinary response (Pinderhughes et al., 2000). Generally speaking, parents possessing low level of education use physical punishments as a disciplinary response (Durrant et al., 1999). On the other hand, there are few exceptions, that shows high educated parents using physical punishments are disciplinary responses (Wolfner and Gelles, 1993). There are few studies that show no effects of education on disciplinary responses (Dietz, 2000). Parents that are of belief that, positive parenting will affect their child in days to come, are less likely to use coercive punishments.

Parents suffering from depressing (Bluestone and Tamis-LeMonda, 1999), or have problems related to alcohol/drug (Woodward and Fergusson, 2002), or have hostile/anti-social personality (Fisher and Fagot, 1993) are expected to use corporal punishments for their children. The level of frustration, anger, or irritation in a parent towards the conflicts that he faces when dealing with is child, many also affect use of coercive strategies, which includes corporal punishments (Ateah and Durrant, 2005; Holden et al., 1995). Frustration and anger of a parent increase the possibility of using more aggressive level of punishment than they expect (Vasta, 1982).

It is also seen that, parent that where subject to physical punishment in their childhood are more prone toward physical punishments towered their children (Bower-Russa et al., 2001; Ghate et al., 2003; Graziano and Namaste, 1990). This intergenerational transmission is also considered to be a major factor that influences a parent's disciplinary response toward their children. A timely relationship was found among the experiences of children been slapped and usage of slapping as a strategy of discipline according to the longitudinal research on behavior development involved with corporal punishment (Deater-Deckard et al., 2003). Although, no relationship was found among juveniles who were suspected of experiencing physical mistreatment in the early or middle stage of their childhood. According to the twin study done by Kendler's (1996) on numerous generations suggested that behavior of parents was influenced genetically by characteristics of their temperament additionally.