See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233138501

Dealing with child problem behaviours effectively

Article in Child Care in Practice · January 1995

DOI: 10.1080/13575279508412864

CITATION READS

1 2,490

2 authors:

Karola Dillenburger Mickey Keenan

Queen's University Belfast Ulster University
144 PUBLICATIONS 2,058 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 2,854 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karola Dillenburger on 28 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dillenburger, K. & Keenan, M. (1995). Dealing with child problem behaviours effectively. Child Care in Practice.
Northern Ireland Journal of Multidisciplinary Child Care Practice. 1, 33-38.

Dealing with child probelm behaviours effectively1

Abstract
A recent campaign launched by the Irish Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children aims to prohibit the
use of physical punishment as a method to deal with
problem behaviours in children. Prohibition alone,
however, is not enough. Parents and other educators
need alternatives when dealing with difficult and unruly
youngsters. On the basis of applied and experimental
behaviour analysis a range of alternatives to physical
punishment have been developed and prove to be more
effective in changing problem behaviours and less
damaging to the child. This paper outlines the
damaging effects of physical punishment and
elaborates on alternative techniques in dealing with
problem behaviours.

The debate about how parents or child minders should deal with unruly
or problematic behaviour in children has recently attracted much media
attention in Ireland and England. This debate was initially sparked off
by a court ruling that a child minder should be allowed to smack
children in her care, despite the fact that national child minding
organisations have explicit non-smacking policies. The debate has
evoked highly emotional responses from parents, child minders,
psychologists and other professionals, all of whom can be found on
both sides of the argument. In this paper we approach the issue not
from an emotional, or "rights of parents vs. rights of children" point of
view. Instead we will address the issue of effective child rearing
practices. The question therefore changes from "Are you right to

1An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the International Year of the Family
Conference, Violence in the Family, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 13.-15. 10. 1994.

1
smack naughty children?" to "What are the most effective methods to
deal with child misbehaviour?"
During childhood (and it does not necessarily stop there)
parents, child minders, teachers and others observe behaviours that
are not desirable either because they could lead to harm for the child
or others or because they do not conform to the norms for
appropriate behaviour set by adults/ society/ culture (Wheeler, 1973).
In such cases the aim of education is usually to change the problematic
behaviour of the child so that it become less frequent or disappears
altogether. For centuries psychologists have searched for explanations
of the processes involved in behavioural change. Some psychologists
propose that "... the experience of [physical] punishment leads to the
development of conscience" and that children refrain from
misbehaviour because "... they experience an attack of conscience"
(Lynn, 1993, 44). In fact, the same psychologists have argued that in
order to develop conscience in their children "sensible parents" should
use techniques such as "... gripping the child's arm ... and
administering a slap" (Lynn, 1993, p. 44). This kind of argument
implies that in order to develop conscience parents/educators should
inflict pain and fear on children. Children then avoid bad behaviour
because they have learnt to fear the consequences. Fear is used as
the instrument of education. The deliberate infliction of pain on
children does, however, cause a lot more than fear and avoidance
behaviour. It has all sorts of unwanted side effects.

PROBLEMS WITH PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT

There are a range of problems with the deliberate induction of pain (let
us be clear that this is exactly what a smack is intended to do) on
human beings. The following list is based on results from behaviour

2
analytic studies of human and non-human behaviour (Dillenburger and
Keenan, 1994).
1. Imitation learning.
Recently a mother of a three year old girl relayed the following story.
The mother had on occasions in the past smacked little Lucy for
misbehaviour. Until one day, when she entered the living room, she
saw Lucy smacking her six month old brother. Tim had spilled a glass
of water. The mother was just about to smack Lucy for hurting the
baby when she realised that that was exactly what Lucy had done.
Lucy had imitated the mother's own behaviour, smack, facial
expression and all. Needless to say, Lucy (or her baby brother) have
never been smacked again.
When it comes to imitation learning children are like mirrors
(Bandura, 1973). It can be quite amusing to watch children imitate
anything they see, from granddad smoking his pipe to aunt's hysterical
giggle. Consequently, if children see adults who smack or engage in
other aggressive kinds of behaviour, we should not be surprised when
they imitate this behaviour too.
2. Vigorous responding.
The most usual response to pain is crying, vigorous waving of arms or
leg-kicking and a general increase in muscle tension. Pain causes
vigorous responding (Baldwin and Baldwin, 1986). It is particularly
important to remember this fact, because when pain is caused by
aggressive behaviour (such as a smack), imitation of aggressive
behaviour is often more vigorous than without the induction of pain.
For example, children may play aggressive games after watching a
kung-fu film. However, their aggressive behaviour would be even more
vigorous if they experienced pain at the same time.
3. Temporary response suppression.

3
On the other hand, pain can also suppress responding. A smack can
stop the misbehaviour for the moment. This leaves the smacker with
the impression that the smack worked. The smacker is therefore more
likely to use this method again. The problem behaviour, however,
usually comes back again and the next time the smack has to be
harder. Taken to the extreme, Sidman (1989) pointed to the effect of
capital punishment, "Certainly, capital punishment gets rid of
behaviour - it does so quite directly, by exterminating the behaver."
(p. 59)
4. Learning to avoid both the pain and the people who
induce pain.
We have already discussed that children who are smacked may learn
to fear the consequences of certain behaviours and learn to avoid
these behaviours. However, children also learn to avoid the person
who administered the pain. Take for example, the two-year old who is
running towards a busy road. Given a smack, he may learn to avoid
running towards the road, but while the smacker runs after the child to
administer the smack, it is unlikely that the child will stop running and
await the smacker. The child has learnt to avoid the person who
smacks and is therefore more likely to keep running. In other words,
the child learns to avoid the smack as well as the smacker.
5. Negative emotional conditioning.
A similar process is in operation in regard to the emotions that
accompany smacking. A smack is an aversive stimuli that is associated
with negative emotions. Through the process of classical conditioning
similar emotions become associated with the smacker. Negative
emotions can become the corner stone of the relationship between the
smacker and the child. The usually bad atmosphere in the house
following a smack is a reflection of this process.

4
6. Generalised response suppression.
Furthermore, smacking can lead to a general response suppression.
Examples of this include, the child that does not join peer play, or
isolates him/herself for others. The loner who does not interact with
others, the shy person. In such cases smacking has not only reduced
the mis-behaviour, but also other, potentially adaptive behaviours.

Given this list of problems with physical punishment (which is by no

means exhaustive), why do some psychologists (and others) still come
to the conclusion that smacking children is a good idea? The real
problem in their psychological argument lies in the fact that they are
looking for the causes of mis-behaviour in the wrong place. They are
looking for the cause of mis-behaviour inside the child, e.g. in the
child's conscience or lack of it. The concept of conscience, however,
is an inference made from behavioural observations. For example, we
observe the little boy who had kicked Dad before, now does not kick
Dad. A traditional explanation sounds like this: "... a little boy might
consider kicking his father, but would experience an attack of
conscience through previous experience that kicking incurs his father's
disapproval and this disapproval is associated with punishment" (Lynn,
1993, p. 44). Both, the boy's conscience and the father's disapproval
are inferences made from a behavioural observation. The behavioural
scientist is not satisfied with this pseudo-explanation. We did not
observe conscience or disapproval. What we did observe, was the
father's and the boy's behaviour. The emotions and thoughts that
accompanied their observable behaviours do not explain it, they are
part of the behaviour and require explanation, too. To talk about
conscience as if it were a thing, a possession, something other than an

5
inference from observed behaviours is a misconception. It does not
add to our knowledge about the causes of human behaviour.
Thorough scientific analysis of behaviour does not rely on
inferences drawn from behavioural observations. The scientist who is
interested in what kind of variables influence behaviour, carefully
analyses each variable in turn and thus established how these variable
can be arranged to achieve desired behavioural change. This kind of
thoroughly scientific approach to behaviour has yielded much for the
understanding of behavioural phenomena (Baldwin and Baldwin, 1986;
Catania, 1992). Applying knowledge gained through the analysis of
behaviour to the issues of child rearing means that we are in a position
to identify a vast range of effective alternatives to physical
punishment.

ALTERNATIVES TO PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT

1. Differential reinforcement of other behaviour (DRO).
The most obvious way for changing mis-behaviour is to establish
behaviours in the child that are incompatible with the undesired
behaviour. For example, if we teach a child to help with the shopping
rather than throw a temper-tantrum in the shopping mall and praise (i.
e., reinforce) this co-operative behaviour, the child will very quickly
learn to help rather than shout. This approach demands some
imagination from the adult, but once adopted, this approach results in
improved relations and lack of embarrassment. Furthermore, a parent
who adopts the DRO approach will soon observe the so-called snowball
effect of positive reinforcement. Once a child displays desired
behaviours many natural reinforcers, such as a better relationship with
his/her parents, more time to play, proud grandparents, invitations to
friends, smiles, hugs, etc. will follow.

6
2. Extinction.
Behaviour, good or bad, that occurs a lot is maintained by
reinforcement. Often parents/ carers are not aware that they
reinforce a behaviour, however, if the behaviour occurs frequently, it is
being reinforced. If we want to reduce mis-behaviour, we therefore
need to find the responsible reinforcer. Once found we can eliminate
it. In this case we use a natural phenomena of behaviour called
extinction. Extinction occurs when the reinforcer of a behaviour is no
longer available. The behaviour naturally decreases as a result.
While extinction can be very effectively used to deal with
problem behaviours, a word of caution is necessary. The natural
process of extinction follows a path that first leads to an increase in
the behaviour before the decrease occurs (so-called extinction burst).
It gets worse before it gets better. Parents/ carers who are not
prepared for this and "give in" at the height of the extinction burst are
in real trouble. The mis-behaviour has been reinforced at a much
higher level than before and chances are it will be maintained at this
level.
3. Response cost procedures.
A relatively common alternative to smacking is a response cost
procedure (Sulzer-Azaroff and Mayer, 1991). In other words, the child
loses part of a privilege, e.g. pocket money, playtime etc. in cases of
mis-behaviour. This method usually works quite effectively, especially
if resultant good behaviour is reinforced by the care giver.
4. Time-out from positive reinforcement.
A similar procedure involves temporary "time-out from positive
reinforcement". The reinforcer that maintains mis-behaviour is
temporarily removed. For example, if two children fight over a lolly,
the lolly disappears temporarily. However, often the reinforcer is not

7
as easily identifiable. In such cases the child can be removed from all
possible reinforcers by being moved into the corner, onto a chair or
even removed from the room altogether. The important point here is
that this time away from the reinforcer must only be terminated when
the mis-behaviour has ceased for a sufficient length of time. If
children are allowed to regain the reinforcer too early, the effect of the
time away from the reinforcer is obviously lost.
5. Stimulus control procedures.
So far we have concentrated on the consequences of mis-behaviour.
By re-arranging contingencies of reinforcement we have been able to
identify a range of alternatives to physical punishment. Consequences
are, however, not the only variable that can be changed in order to
change behaviour. It is a behavioural fact that stimuli can gain control
over behaviour. The most obvious examples of stimulus control can be
observed when we view the same person behaving in different
settings, such as school vs. home, work vs. play.
Stimulus control can be used to prevent mis-behaviour. For
example, a child can be taught to respond to certain key words or a
"code word" can be established. When the child mis-behaves the adult
says the code word and if training was effective the child will cease to
mis-behave. A nice example of the use of stimulus control procedures
is the case of seven year of Sidney, whose nail-biting has reached
serious proportions. A code word was established between him and
the child-minder. Each time he bit his nails the child-minder used the
words and he stopped biting his nails. Obviously positive reinforcers
followed and the problem behaviour ceased very soon.
Stimulus control can also be used by training the unwanted
behaviour in the presence of a particular stimulus (Pryor, 1984). In

8
order to decrease the unwanted behaviour after training, the stimulus
is simply not presented.
6. Eliminate an early component of a behavioural chain.
Most mis-behaviours do not occur in isolation. Careful observers can
easily identify a whole sequence of events or chain of behaviours that
lead up to the mis-behaviour. By eliminating an early component of
the behavioural chain the mis-behaviour can be averted Martin and
Pear, 1992). For example, in a restaurant, a child begins to rock the
chair, climb up on the chair, get down from the chair, wander around
the table, wander off to the fish tank, go further to the sweet trolley
etc. If the parents call the child when he or she has reached the sweet
trolley, they can expect a temper tantrum instead of a well-behaved
child. By eliminating an earlier component, e.g. climbing on the chair
the whole scene could have been averted. The behaviour of sitting on
a chair in a restaurant should than be reinforced.
7. Observational learning.
We have already seen earlier that children learn much of their
behavioural repertoire by imitating others. Children will imitate wanted
and unwanted behaviour. Clearly, if parents/carers engage in anti-
social behaviour themselves they need not be surprised if their children
do likewise. However, parents are not the only people that children
imitate and they will inevitably pick up some undesired behaviour, even
long before they start school. Imitation learning can, of course, be
used to prevent mis-behaviour or to teach children how to deal with
others who will entice them to mis-behave. It is important to
remember that children can (and have to) learn social skills and
assertive behaviours that will protect them from peer pressure to mis-
behave.
8. Reasoning and rules.

9
One of the most frequent criticisms of people who advocate non-
smacking is that they are too liberal and that not smacking means
letting children away with everything. The argument is that very
young children cannot understand reasoning and therefore a smack
gets the message home. Clearly, appropriate responding to reasoning
is something children (as well as some adults) have to learn. We
cannot expect a child that is used to being hit for mis-behaviour to
respond appropriately to reasoning without teaching the child what to
do. The important point of reasoning is not the age of the child but
that " people who have been raised with reasoning ever since
childhood are most likely to use it and respond quickly when others
use it with them in adulthood. (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1986, p. 261)
Conclusion
Sophisticated methods have been developed to shape child behaviour
in an effective way. This does not only lead to better behaved children
but also to happier and healthier relationships between the adults and
children (Skinner, 1953). Physical punishment can then finally be
exposed as what is really is: an outdated, misguided, abusive form of
relating to others who are smaller and weaker that oneself, that can
only be explained by lack of sophistication and/or education on the
part of the smacker.

References
Baldwin, J. D. & Baldwin, J. I. (1986). Behavior principles in everyday
life (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Catania, A. C. (1992). Learning (3rd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.

10
 Dillenburger, K. & Keenan, M. (1994). The dangers of misguided and
outdated applications of psychological principles. The Irish
Psychologist, 1, 56-58.
Lynn, R. (1993). The psychology of smacking children. The Irish
Psychologist, 11, 44-45.
Martin G. & Pear J. (1992). Behaviour modification. What it is and how
to do it. USA: Simon & Schuster Company.
Pryor, K. (1984). Don't shoot the dog. The new art of teaching and
training. U.S.A., London: Bantam Books.
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Co-
operative, Inc., Publishers.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York:
Macmillan.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B. & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting
change. U.S.A., London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Wheeler, H. (Ed.) (1973). Beyond the punitive society. Operant
conditioning: Social and political aspects. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman & Co.

11

View publication stats