“Punishment on Trial” is an article by Ennio Cipani which offers guidelines on how a child should be punished. Many of the times, punishment may have less impact on the behavioral conduct, especially if it is heedlessly applied. The articleFactors That Influence Whether a Given Contingency Functions as a Punisher, explains that how a child is punished has a psychological effect on them, and this determines if the punishment will attract positive or negative response from the child.
According to Cipani, the psychological impact inflicted on the child after a punisher is exerted makes the child change for better or for the worst. Section (iii) of the article emphasizes on the six basic principles of punishment under detailed analysis (Cipani, 2004). The six principles act as a determinant of whether a given contingency function as a punisher. The factors described by Cipani include; the existence of behavioral contingency, the consistency, even swap rule, competing consequences, and responsible use of punishment.
Existence of behavioral contingency– Contingency Functions as a Punisher
A behavioral contingency is a relationship between a behavior and a consequence. The contingency exists when an action attracts a certain consequence. A cautionary statement can be such as “If you arrive late, then, you will not have your snack.” conversely, “if you arrive early then, you will have your snack.” This construction reflects on the intended punisher on a specific behavior.
The article explains that a punishment being levied is said to be effective if it is associated with a consequence that must be achieved after a child is punished (Cipani, 2004)-Contingency Functions as a Punisher. This aspect increases the commitment of a child so that they can achieve the end prize. When a punishment lacks a specific desired behavior as the outcome, then the contingency becomes meaningless if it is applied.
In instances where punishment is linked to a desirable consequence, then it successfully functions as a punisher. The reason is that the child would rather stick to their best behaviors so that they can avoid the punishment. Most therapy counsels on children show that proper implementation of punishment results in a change in behavior, and mostly results in behavioral change.
The article advises that when using behavior contingency, one must be clear on their preferred behavior and the possible consequence (Cipani, 2004). The expectations must be clear to avoid any misinterpretation by the child. For instance, if a child is timed out for throwing tantrums and timed out the second time for sleeplessness, then the child might be confused about why they are being punished, and their behavior may remain constant.
If” and “Then” Phrases
Behavior contingency should be defined by “if” and “then” phrases to distinguish the specific behavior which attracts a consequence. Additionally, the punishment assigned to a particular behavior should be consistent. Cipani explains that parents and teachers should be vigilant in ensuring that they detect the occurrence of the behavior, and each time, the action is punished accordingly.
This is to train the child of the consequence that positive and negative behaviors attract. Additional advice to note from Cipani is that parents should deny their children things that are dear to them as a form of punishment. For contingency to be effective as a punisher, the contingency must not leave a significant impact. For this reason, the author identifies the need to deprive the children of the things that they love the most so that they can feel the gap and have a reason to rethink their unwanted behaviors.
The consistency-Contingency Functions as a Punisher
Each contingency applied for a specific behavior must be consistent, for it to qualify as a punisher. Consistency is maintaining a particular culture, and, in this context, maintaining a specific punishment for a specific behavior becomes effective when applied. The inconsistency in the application of a contingency communicates different restricted and desirable conducts, which in turn confuses the child.
This psychological theory applies in many aspects of our lives. For instance, repeated solving of sums in statistics makes the child perform better in that subject. This means that consistent application of a consequence to a bad behavior increases the possibility of abandonment of that behavior by the child, since they understand that bad conducts attract negative consequences.
Cipani encourages parents to utilize the consistent application of a contingency to attract desirable behavior. Consistency in the application of a consequence teaches the child that indiscipline behaviors can never be tolerated, and that it attracts negative consequences. Ignoring indiscipline is a cause for alarm because it has a psychological impact on the child (Cipani, 2004). Refraining from punishing bad behaviors reflects on the child that bad behaviors can sometimes go unpunished. Therefore, they may be tricked into turning to their old behaviors once in a while, and the punisher thus becomes irrelevant.
The “Even Swap” Rule
A contingency applied for behavior must imply the intended behavior. Denial, for instance, should depict bad behavior, while Access should depict a good behavior. For a contingency to function effectively, the even swap rule should be considered. This theory states that for every punishment, reinforcement should be included. This is what is termed as effective punishment in psychology.
In this theory, the desired behavior, consequence, and punishment are reinforced to have an impact on the child (Cipani, 2004)-Contingency Functions as a Punisher. For instance, parents can offer counsel to their children explaining their desired behavior so that the child can understand how they are expected to behave, and they should also use understandable mechanism to avoid confusing the child and, therefore, interfering with the process of change.
The article explains that when punishment is reinforced, its impact is elevated. For children that are going through punishment and reinforcement, the child will refrain from making the same mistake. Parents are advised to inform their children of their desired behavior to ensure that the children are aware of the behavior the parents appreciate most (Cipani, 2004). In educating the child on the best behavior, they ought to adopt a reinforcer that makes the contingency function effectively as a punisher.
Remove Competing Consequences
A contingency functions better as a punisher if it can achieve the desired results. The article records that when a contingency achieves undesirable outcomes, it shows that the contingency was implemented incorrectly. Competing punishers may hinder the disciplinary actions. For instance, when a mother reports a mistake done by a child to the father, the child may feel ganged up on, and he/she may be resistant to the change. Therefore, the act represents a competing consequence that may hinder the effectiveness of the punisher (Cipani, 2004).
The environment should also be favorable to enable peaceful conversations to take place. The article advises on the importance of the eradication of any hindrances that may interfere with the positive behavioral development of the child. In most cases, children are keen to detect any competing consequences. This may result in a child adopting undesirable behaviors contrary to what the parents have been instilling in them.
Responsible use of punishment-Contingency Functions as a Punisher
A punisher can either improve or destroy the behavioral conduct of a child. The level of hostility involved with the punishment determines how the child reacts to it. Parents are cautioned against using aggressive forms of punishment because it justifies the rebellious response from the child. The article explains that parents are responsible for the type of punishment they execute on their children. If a punishment is over-executed, a child may feel rejected and not appreciated. This may increase the chances of psychological distress. Psychological distress may develop into aggression, rebellion, and other undesirable behaviors (Cipani, 2004).
Also, when parents reduce their rate of punishing negative behaviors, children may feel that their actions are ethical. However, they may worsen with time. Therefore, punishments should be executed efficiently following the guidelines of responsibility and in moderation. This is to enable the child to accept that their behavior should change. Punishments should be executed to improve and not hurt, and acting responsibly may generate excellent outcomes after application.
Conclusion
The factors that determine a working contingency replicates a punisher is dependent on the existence of behavioral contingency, the consistency, even swap rule, competing consequences, and responsible use of punishment. A contingency must have a specific desirable consequence after the execution of a punishment to make the contingency impactful. While executing a punishment, consistency is important since it creates an understandable norm of sanity and expected conduct. The even swap rule determines if a contingency is efficient since reinforcement must be used together with the punisher to make an impact.
Competing consequences such as involvement of another party may be a hindrance to achieving desired outcomes. This is because the child may feel unappreciated. Finally, responsible execution of punishment is moderation, but efficiently is the best way to apply contingency as a punisher because they may feel unwanted if the punisher is too aggressive, and this may contribute to aggression and rebellion towards change.
Reference
Cipani, E. (2004). Punishment on Trial. Reno, Nevada: Context Press. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/Resources/Documents/otrp/resources/cipani09.pdf