Jan
28
Spanking and Classical Conditioning
Filed Under General, Psychology
I was talking to a group of teachers today about spanking. I don’t know how we got on the topic but I was telling them about my cousin who is a vice principal in the St. Louis area and her school district allows them to spank children.
In any case, one teacher said very matter of fact, “Spanking doesn’t work anyway.” I didn’t want to argue with her lest I should not be wanted back at that school, plus the fact that there where students within earshot and I did not want to argue in front of them.
While spanking may not be a positive reinforcement, it is a positive punishment. Now, don’t go get all in a huff just yet. If you look up positive and negative reinforcements and punishments in an psychological encyclopedia, it will tell you that a reinforcement is anything that encourages a behavior and a punishment is something that discourages a behavior. The difference between positive and negative, however, is more difficult to distinguish. A reinforcement or punishment is considered positive if it is applied to a subject and negative is it is removed.
In this way, giving a dog a treat for sitting when commanded is a positive reinforcement. Tuning down the radio when in the car when someone asks is a negative reinforcement (Relative to the person making the request.)
On the other hand, taking the car keys from a teenager unable to be home before curfew is a negative punishment while spanking a child for being rude to a parent is a positive punishment.
B.F. Skinner was one of the pioneering psychologists in operant conditioning. Skinner and others showed that all four forms of conditioning work, though to varying degrees, depending on the subject.
Pigeons have been all but taught to line dance, using food as a positive reinforcement. After learning the fist step, they are made to do the first step and a second step consecutively before being rewarded. This can continue ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Rats have shown negative reinforcement by require them to activate a switch in order to turn of an electrified floor. Given the option of a mild shock to get to food and water, they will die of dehydration before leaving the switch.
An example of positive punishment has been found in dogs, forced to step onto a mildly electrified pad in order to get food and water. Even a mild voltage will lead the dogs to die of dehydration rather than bear discomfort.
An example of negative punishment has been shown in Rats who have had their brains wired with electrodes to cause intense physical pleasure (use your imagination. It’s not that hard to figure out.). Given the option of activating a switch to turn on the electrode on one side of a cage and food and water on the other, they will choose to activate the switch, even to the point of death by dehydration.
More abstract examples don’t work well with non-rational creatures. A dog, for example doesn’t understand loosing a squeaky toy because it is annoying to its owner. A teenager does, however, realize the reasoning for loosing the car keys for coming home after curfew.
In any case, applied affects, positive reinforcement and punishment have a greater effect than removed affects, negative reinforcement and punishment. We often preach positive reinforcement because it so clearly works effectively and that no one gets hurt. In a world where everyone is allowed to think and do as they please, so long as no one else gets hurt, that is a very important attribution. Positive punishment works nearly if not equally as well.
It is negative reinforcement and punishment that don’t work as well. It is not as easy to comprehend “If I do or don’t do this, this good thing or this bad thing goes away.” than it is to understand, “If I do this, this good thing or this bad thing will happen to me.”
In any case, the teacher today was dead wrong when she said, “Spanking doesn’t work anyway.”
~cv
Great work.