1

Argumentative Essay Title

Is Punishment Better than Negative Reinforcement in Controlling Behavior in Children?

 2

The capability to learn and alter behaviours based on the advantageous and poor results of
certain actions is an important skill used within the lifespan of an individual (Shephard et al.,
2014). The application of effective discipline techniques is a crucial aspect of parenting, in which
it aims to promote appropriate behaviour and instill vital values and morals. When parents have
children, they are obligated to find disciplining techniques that are suitable and acceptable in the
current world. Two commonly employed methods parents opt for are negative reinforcement and
punishment. Among psychologists, educators, and parents the debate on whether punishment or
negative reinforcement is more effective in controlling behaviour in children has sparked
controversy. Both approaches aim to shape behaviour by discouraging undesirable actions.
However, a systematic analysis of studies suggests that negative reinforcement is a more ethical
and effective strategy than punishment. Negative reinforcement works by taking away an
aversive stimulus that an individual finds undesirable to increase the likelihood of a desired
behaviour (Cooper et al., 2020). Examples of negative reinforcement include studying for an
exam to avoid getting poor grades or removing the code of silence in the classroom once
everyone completes their tasks. Punishment on the other hand focuses on the consequences of
undesirable behaviour. Examples of punishment include doing extra homework because the
grades received were poor. The essay will examine the idea of negative reinforcement and the
strength it must influence and introduce new behaviours within children. It will also research the
broader positive impacts of the use of negative reinforcement in critical paediatric impairment
studies. Furthermore, to further support the contention limitations of punishment are explored
both in short-term and long-term circumstances.

The concept and power of negative reinforcement

Negative reinforcement, as described by operant conditioning, involves the removal of aversive

stimuli when the desired behaviour is exhibited (McLeod, 2018). This technique reinforces
positive behavioural patterns, making it more effective in shaping children's conduct. According
to McLeod's (2018) analysis of B.F. Skinner’s research on operant conditioning, individuals are
more likely to repeat behaviours that are followed by pleasant outcomes or the removal of
unpleasant ones. The operant conditioning relies on the premise that actions that are followed by
reinforcement will be strengthened and more likely to occur again in the future. Skinner
 3

introduced a new term into the law of effect on the effectiveness of negative reinforcement. He
did this by placing a rat in his Skinner box and then subjecting it to an unpleasant electric
current. As the rat moved about the box it would accidentally knock the lever which the electric
current would switch off. This action highlights the negative reinforcement method. The rats
quickly learned to go straight to the lever after a few times being put in the box. Through this, he
was able to observe the rate at which behaviour was reinforced and determine when specific
behaviours are reinforced and impact how strong a learned behaviour becomes. The study
highlighted that the type of reinforcement which had the quickest rate of extinction was a
continuous reinforcement scheme. Thus, this experiment supports the contention that if negative
reinforcement is used in conjunction with a continuous reinforcement schedule it can be an
effective tool in actively creating a stimulus happening. Negative reinforcement emphasizes the
reinforcement of desired behaviour, allowing children to associate their actions with favourable
outcomes. According to Skinner (1953, as cited in McLeod, 2018) the positive association
enhances motivation and engagement, fostering an environment that encourages learning and
growth. More studies support this hypothesis, one being a study where two young children's
behaviours were analysed in a behavioural outpatient clinic in three phases (Shieltz et al., 2019).
Phase three was the crucial stage in which it highlighted the study of how task completion and
behavioural and academic performance were measured from a contingent negative
reinforcement. Seven-year-old Jake was instructed to finish a worksheet in which he was able to
leave the clinic if it was completed. The study showed that when the negative reinforcement was
paired with both instructional strategies, Jake's problem behaviour decreased to zero, his task
attempts increased to 100% and his task accuracy averaged 87% (Shieltz et al., 2019). Thus, the
results of the current study provide credible evidence that suggests negative reinforcement is a
strong reinforcement method in controlling behaviour.

Wider positive impacts negative reinforcement has among children

Negative reinforcement not only controls a lot of power in behavioural change but also helps
shape long-term behavioural changes. Through the removal of aversive stimuli, children are
more likely to repeat the desired behaviour as they learn that engaging in that behaviour leads to
a better outcome. This process facilitates the development of self-regulation skills, enabling
 4

children to internalize positive behaviour patterns (Eisenberger et al., 2016). Stutton (2021)
mentions famous psychologist Albert Bandura's social learning theory and how it examines
negative reinforcement in influences learning processes and behaviour. The theory stems from
the concept that individuals learn by observing other behaviour and the consequences of certain
behaviours. The theory known as observational learning posits that individuals can learn through
a process called vicarious reinforcement or punishment. In which individuals are more likely to
model and imitate behaviours when other individuals are being rewarded or punished for certain
actions. This links to the idea of negative reinforcement in that observational learning can occur
when individuals observe others engaging in a behaviour that leads to the removal of an aversive
stimulus. In the case where an observed behaviour is followed by the removal of unpleasant
consequences, individuals are more likely to imitate that behaviour. For example, if a child is
rewarded by having a chore taken away after they complete eating their dinner, the child may be
more inclined to imitate that behaviour of finishing the dinner in the hope of experiencing the
same negative reinforcement. Thus, negative reinforcement serves as a motivating factor for
individuals as they learn which behaviours are likely to result in the removal of an aversive
stimulus. The use of negative reinforcement is also commonly used among paediatrics. The
study found that escape-contingency served as an effective reinforcer to shape mealtime
behaviour (Voulgarakis & Forte, 2015). The research indicates that the combination of negative
reinforcement involves the elimination of the non-preferred ingredients and the presentation of
the preferred ingredient as part of the treatment bundle. Within the study, a contingency was
developed in which after a certain number of bites, the participants would exit both the meal and
mealtime area. The study focused on paediatrics as a food-eating disability thus the participant
was an eight-year-old male diagnosed with cerebral palsy. The child was required to initially
have 5 bites at the first intervention stage, which then slowly increased to 7 and then 10. From
the increase in bites, they were then lowered from 10 bites to 7 which was done to strengthen the
functional relationship. The negative reinforcement element came into play in which the criterion
was set where if the participant met the bites within a 30-min period the participant would be
allowed to leave the mealtime and mealtime area. The intervention was proven to be an effective
means of increasing the number of bites accepted during mealtime and consequently increasing
the calorie intake as the participant ingested all the required bites in under 30 minutes.
 5

Negative reinforcement helps build supportive relationships between parents, educators, and
children's

Negative reinforcement places a greater emphasis on positive interactions and fosters more
healthy relationships between the guardian and the child. Negative reinforcement strategies, such
as timeout or response cost, have been found to be effective in reducing problem behaviours
while maintaining a positive and supportive relationship between the child and the caregiver
(Kazdin, 2016). In focusing on reinforcing desired behaviours, children feel supported and
understood, which strengthens the bond between the child and the adult figure. In contrast,
studies have shown that there is an association between physical punishment and parent-child
relationships (Durrant & Ensom, 2012). Another study by Holden, Coleman, and Schmidt (2014)
also found that frequent physical punishment was associated with decreased warmth in the
parent-child relationship and reduced compliance from children.

Limitations of Punishment in controlling behavioural change

While punishment is often seen as an immediate solution to deter undesirable behaviour, it has
several limitations and potential negative consequences that should be considered. There is
currently no evidence that supports physical punishment as a means of improving child
behaviour or reducing negative outcomes for children (Gershoff et al., 2018). Punishment
involves the imposition of unpleasant consequences in response to undesired behaviour. Many
individuals suggest that at first, it may be effective however in the long run it has several serious
consequences. Consequently, punishment is a short-term suppression in controlling children's
behaviour in which it fails to address the underlying causes or provide alternative strategies for
children to adopt. (Baumrind, 1994). Sege and Siegel (2018) highlighted a study that was
conducted in 2014 which measured parent and child interactions during daily actions using voice
recordings. The study consisted of 33 families of which 15 of these families 45% used corporal
punishment. The effects of corporal punishment were transient, that being within 10 minutes
73% of the children had resumed the same behaviour for which they were punished. This data
draws the conclusion that punishment does impact genuine behavioural change.
 6

Punishment impacts the long-term behaviours of children and when they become adults

Psychological research suggests that punishment can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as
increased aggression, resentment, and a focus on avoiding punishment rather than understanding
the reasons behind the rule. The fear of punishment may inhibit the child's cognitive
development and hinder the formation of healthy emotional connections. An analysis of data
from the Adverse childhood experiences survey found that adults who were subjected to physical
punishment of being spanked were more likely to have ‘attempted suicide, to have used street
drugs, and to have a drinking problem’ (Gershoff et al., 2018) than those individuals who were
not subjected to any physical punishment. According to a meta-analysis that consisted of 27
studies on physical punishment and child aggression found that regardless of the location of the
study, the sample size of the study or the age of the children they all found a positive association
between physical punishment and increased child aggression. Frequent punishment towards
children can also lead to unintended side effects in children. One main impact is on the child's
self-esteem in which a study by Gunther-Mohr et al (2016) found that children subjected to
punishment were more likely to exhibit increased levels of stress and fear. These may instill
feelings of worthlessness and failure, impairing their social, emotional, and cognitive
development as well.

Both reinforcement and punishment are fundamental standards of behaviourism wherein they
both alter and regulate behavioural changes. Within children, there has been large controversy on
whether negative reinforcement or punishment is a better means of changing and adapting
behaviour. From the research conducted in the essay, it is evident that negative reinforcement is
a better means of controlling behaviour within children. Negative reinforcement theory assumes
that the behaviour patterns will be enhanced when an unwanted stimulus is taken away when
rewarding current behaviour. Although B.F Skinner's study on operant conditioning (McLeod,
2018) is an old study it is profoundly one of the first studies in which reinforcement was
discovered. Therefore, it is a valid study that highlights the concept of negative reinforcement
and the power such reinforcement has on controlling behavioural change. To further enhance the
concept Skieltz and others' (2019) study in managing children's behaviour also supported the
same contention. The study found that when the negative reinforcement was used in conjunction
 7

with instructional strategies jakes problem behaviour decreased to zero, at the same time his task
attempt increased to 100 per cent. The study was only conducted with two children aged 7 and 8
therefore if the study examined a larger sample size the findings would have more credibility.
negative reinforcement not only is an effective means in children but also an effective strategy
used for disabled children ones with eating disorders. The study by Voulgarakis and Forte (2015)
brought to light how escape-contingency can be used to reinforce mealtime behaviour. All these
studies collectively have the same outcome in highlighting the positive effects negative
reinforcement has been able to change and shape behaviour. To support the concept that
punishment is not effective a range of studies were reviewed. All the studies emphasized the
limitations of punishment as a means of changing behaviour. Sege and Siegel (2018) highlighted
a study that was done in 2014. The study although a small sample size showed how quickly
children would return to their current behaviours are receiving corporal punishment. Both
Gershoff et al (2018) and Coleman, and Schmidt (2014) highlight the long-term effects
punishment can have. Not only can punishment lead to unwanted outcomes, but punishment also
leads to reduce levels of self-esteem, aggression, and resentment. Therefore, with these studies
and research, it is apparent that negative reinforcement is superior to punishment in controlling
and adapting behaviour among children.

References