Hitting children for education/disciplinary purposes...

[Quetzal]

Hitting a child can inhibit undesirable behavior, but it doesn't teach a child why the behavior is undesirable or promote the development of internalized morality that would inhibit whole classes of harmful behaviors in the future.

Hitting doesn't educate, and I wouldn't count on the undesirable behavior remaining inhibited if the threat of imminent retaliation be removed.

Correct, but that is why there are two parts to discipline. The discipline act itself and then a clear, concise explanation of the reason (in terms they can easily understand).

 

[crossfire]

I actually had an experience the other day. Me, my sister and her son (my nephew) went for shopping. He's an extra hyperactive child with special rebellious nature. Please don't tell me all children are, I'm saying "extra" and "special" here. Suddenly he started playing by shouting very loudly in a way that bothered everyone around. In the first couple of times we didn't say anything to him maybe he would stop. We gave him something to play with, but no use. As he repeated it, his mother decided to tell him to stop in a normal way. She did it many times but he did not stop. She looked at me wanting me to do something about it. I did the same thing in a more serious but not scary voice for a number of times. Nothing worked. I then decided to hit the lower part of his ear lightly in a way that gives little pain to feel, with my index finger like ((this))(dunno what's called in English) giving him a serious but not scary look, raising my index finger up as a sign to stop, a sign he knows very well that I used also in all the previous attempts. His reaction was stopping shouting, looking at me with an "oh, okay" expression and getting back to playing with the stuff (he was on the trolley with the groceries). Things after that went pretty much normal with no side effects of what so ever.

That's my experience that makes me vote "Yes". But I stress that it has to considered so very carefully and only as a last resort if no other options worked.

I wouldn't count the flick to the ear as hitting. It wasn't violent. It'd count it as non-verbal communication, since verbal communication failed. In this case, the non-verbal communication worked where verbal communication failed.

If a preschool child does something that might have endangered themselves or others, and you catch them in the act and prevent them from doing it, a single, slight swat on the rear end might be appropriate (used in the same manner as Smart Guy's flick to the ear--not enough to cause any pain) as a non-verbal signal of danger in conjunction with a verbal explanation as to why it was dangerous would be totally appropriate, imo.

If a child is acting out and trying to raise hell out of spite or to get what they want, remove them to a safe area and let them throw their fit. Do not allow any connection with raising hell and getting what they want to occur. If they are acting up out of resistance to you trying to force them into doing something, try a different tactic other than force. Too much use of force can cause psychological problems later on.

Of course all of this is only my own general opinion. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Quetzal]

If a preschool child does something that might have endangered themselves or others, and you catch them in the act and prevent them from doing it, a single, slight swat on the rear end might be appropriate (used in the same manner as Smart Guy's flick to the ear--not enough to cause any pain) as a non-verbal signal of danger in conjunction with a verbal explanation as to why it was dangerous would be totally appropriate, imo.

This is my stance as well.

If a child is acting out and trying to raise hell to out of spite or to get what they want, remove them to a safe area and let them throw their fit. Do not allow any connection with raising hell and getting what they want to occur. If they are acting up out of resistance to you trying to force them into doing something, try a different tactic other than force. Too much use of force can cause psychological problems later on.

Correct, in this instance, Little Q would be removed and left alone. A time out, as it were. When he is ready to calm down, we revisit the topic and discuss why it was inappropriate. No physical discipline required based on my experiences.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I wouldn't count the flick to the ear as hitting. It wasn't violent. It'd count it as non-verbal communication, since verbal communication failed. In this case, the non-verbal communication worked where verbal communication failed.

If a preschool child does something that might have endangered themselves or others, and you catch them in the act and prevent them from doing it, a single, slight swat on the rear end might be appropriate (used in the same manner as Smart Guy's flick to the ear--not enough to cause any pain) as a non-verbal signal of danger in conjunction with a verbal explanation as to why it was dangerous would be totally appropriate, imo.

I include such cases in the "yes" vote as I consider it hitting, since I don't consider all kinds hitting violent. Am I too soft to consider it so?

 

[crossfire]

I include such cases in the "yes" vote as I consider it hitting, since I don't consider all kinds hitting violent. Am I too soft to consider it so?

I don't see anything wrong with non-verbal forms of communication, as long as it isn't aggressive. (Your finger flick to the ear and raising up your finger with a serious look on your face, a slight swat on the rear end to signal danger, a "high five" to signal "well done!") Verbal communication doesn't always get the point across, so non-verbal communication can be helpful. I don't count that as hitting. I see hitting has having an element of aggression to it, and is often employed to shut down communication and reasoning rather than to promote communication and reasoning.

 

[Koldo]

Works= is effective.

Sure, but effective for what ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure, but effective for what ?

In my case, it worked to teach me how to cover my tracks, that what mom doesn't know won't hurt, and how to be a convincing liar. And pretty much how to not respect authority.

 

[Koldo]

In my case, it worked to teach me how to cover my tracks, that what mom doesn't know won't hurt, and how to be a convincing liar. And pretty much how to not respect authority.

How would non-physical punishment have a different result ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How would non-physical punishment have a different result ?

It wouldn't have necessarily, as my parents would have had to have worked to teach me better behavior. But their discipline started and stopped with a spanking.

 

[Draka]

It wouldn't have necessarily, as my parents would have had to have worked to teach me better behavior. But their discipline started and stopped with a spanking.

Do you think that is the way for most parents who spank? I know I was spanked, but I also know I was told why and talked to afterwards. Didn't make me a better liar or anything (my brother was a fantastic liar though and was often why I would get in trouble for something he did ). If physical discipline is used it is commonly used in conjunction with talking. You don't just swat and leave it at that. Nothing is learned. Perhaps that is why you have the feelings you do though. Discipline wasn't enacted correctly in your house growing up. Doesn't mean that is the way for every household though.