Child discipline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Because the values, beliefs, education, customs and cultures of people vary so widely, along with the age and temperament of the child, methods of child discipline vary widely. Child discipline is a topic that draws from a wide range of interested fields, such as parenting, the professional practice of behavior analysis, developmental psychology, social work, and various religious perspectives. In recent years, advances in the understanding of attachment parenting have provided a new background of theoretical understanding and advanced clinical and practical understanding of the effectiveness and outcome of parenting methods.

The word discipline is defined as imparting knowledge and skill, in other words to teach.[1] Discipline is used by parents to teach their children about expectations, guidelines and principles. Children need to be given regular discipline to be taught right from wrong and to be maintained safe. Child discipline can involve rewards and punishments to teach self-control, increase desirable behaviors and decrease undesirable behaviors in children.[2] In its most general sense, discipline refers to systematic instruction given to a disciple. To discipline thus means to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct.[3] While the purpose of child discipline is to develop and entrench desirable social habits in children, the ultimate goal is to foster sound judgement and morals so the child develops and maintains self-discipline throughout the rest of his/her life.

In western society, there has been debate in recent years over the use of corporal punishment for children in general, and increased attention has been given to the concept of "positive parenting" where good behavior is encouraged and rewarded.[4]

History[edit]

Historical research suggests that there has always a been a great deal of individual variation in methods of discipline.[5]

Medieval Times[edit]

Nicholas Orme of the University of Exeter argues that children in medieval times were treated differently from adults in legal matters, and the authorities were as troubled about violence to children as they were to adults. In his article, "Childhood in Medieval England," he states, "Corporal punishment was in use throughout society and in homes, although social commentators criticized parents for indulgence towards children rather than for harsh discipline." Salvation was the main goal of discipline, and parents were driven to ensure their children a place in heaven.[6]

Colonial Times[edit]

During colonial times in the United States, parents were able to provide enjoyments for their children in the form of toys, according to David Robinson, writer for the "Colonial Williamsburg Journal." Robinson notes that even the Puritans permitted their young children to play freely. Older children were expected to swiftly adopt adult chores and accountabilities, to meet the strict necessities of daily life.[6]

Biblical views[edit]

The Book of Proverbs mentions the importance of disciplining children, as opposed to leaving them neglected or unruly, in several verses. Interpretation of these verses varies, as do many passages from the Bible, from literal to metaphorical. The most often paraphrased is from Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (King James Version.) Other passages that mention the 'rod' are Proverbs 23:14, "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell," and Proverbs 29:15, "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."[7]

Although the Bible's lessons have been paraphrased for hundreds of years, the modern phrase, "Spare the rod and spoil the child," was coined by Samuel Butler, in Hudibras, a mock heroic narrative poem published in 1663. The Contemporary English Version of Proverbs 13:24 is: 'If you love your children you will correct them; if you don't love them, you won't correct them'.

Medieval views[edit]

Medieval schoolboy birched on the bare buttocks

The primary guidelines followed by medieval parents in training their children were from the Bible. Scolding was considered ineffectual, and cursing a child was a terrible thing.[8] In general, the use of corporal punishment was as a disciplinary action taken to shape behavior, not a pervasive dispensing of beatings for no reason. Corporal punishment was undoubtedly the norm. The medieval world was a dangerous place, and it could take harsh measures to prepare a child to live in it. Pain was the medieval way of illustrating that actions had consequences.[9]

Influence of John Locke[edit]

In his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding English physician and philosopher John Locke argued that the child resembled a blank tablet (tabula rasa) at birth, and was not inherently full of sin. In his 1693 Some Thoughts Concerning Education he suggested that the task of the parent was to build in the child the strong body and habits of mind that would allow the capacity of reason to develop, and that parents could reward good behavior with their esteem and punish bad behavior with disgrace – the withdrawal of parental approval and affection - as opposed to beatings.[10]

The twentieth century[edit]

In the early twentieth century, child-rearing experts abandoned a romantic view of childhood and advocated formation of proper habits to discipline children. A 1914 U.S. Children's Bureau pamphlet, Infant Care, urged a strict schedule and admonished parents not to play with their babies.[citation needed] John B. Watson's 1924 Behaviorism argued that parents could train malleable children by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad, and by following precise schedules for food, sleep, and other bodily functions.[citation needed]

Although such principles began to be rejected as early as the 1930s, they were firmly renounced in the 1946 best-seller Baby and Child Care, by pediatrician Benjamin Spock, which told parents to trust their own instincts and to view the child as a reasonable, friendly human being. Dr. Spock revised his first edition to urge more parent-centered discipline in 1957, but critics blamed his popular book for its permissive attitude during the youth rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s.[10]

The return of the rod[edit]

Following the turbulent and permissive era of the 1960s and early 1970s, American evangelical Christian James Dobson sought the return of a more conservative society and aimed to promote Biblical parenting. In 1977 he published the first of several parenting books, Dare to Discipline, which advocated spanking of children up to age eight and promoted discipline which would allow "the God of our fathers to be introduced to our beloved children."[11]

Dobson's position is controversial. As early as 1985 The New York Times stated that "most child-care experts today disapprove of physical punishment."[12]

Corporal punishment[edit]

Legality of corporal punishment in the United States
Legality of corporal punishment in Europe
  Corporal punishment prohibited in schools and the home
  Corporal punishment prohibited in schools only
  Corporal punishment not prohibited in schools or in the home

In many cultures, parents have historically had the right to spank their children when appropriate. As an example, a 2006 retrospective report study in New Zealand showed that physical punishment of children remained quite common in the 1970s and 1980s, with 80% of the sample reporting some kind of corporal punishment from parents, at some time during childhood. Among this sample, 29% reported being hit with an empty hand. However 45% were hit with an object, and 6% were subjected to serious physical abuse. The study noted that abusive physical punishment tended to be given by fathers and often involved striking the child's head or torso instead of the buttocks or limbs.[13]

Attitudes have changed in recent years, and legislation in some countries, particularly in continental Europe, reflect an increased skepticism toward corporal punishment. As of 2009, domestic corporal punishment had been outlawed in 24 countries around the world, most of them in Europe or Latin America, beginning with Sweden in 1979. Thirty years after Sweden's ban, official figures show that just 10 percent of Swedish children are spanked or otherwise struck by their parents today. More than 90 percent of Swedish children were spanked prior to the ban.[14] The Swedish law does not actually lay down any legal punishment for smacking but requires social workers to support families with problems.[14]

Even as corporal punishment became increasingly controversial in North America, Britain, Australia and much of the rest of the English-speaking world, limited appropriate corporal punishment of children by their parents remained lawful in all 50 states of the United States. It was not until 2012 that Delaware became the first state to pass a statute defining "physical injury" to a child to include "any impairment of physical condition or pain."[15]

Cultural Differences[edit]

A number of authors have emphasized the importance of cultural differences in assessing disciplinary methods. Baumrind argues that "The cultural context critically determines the meaning and therefore the consequences of physical discipline . . ." (Baumrind, 1996; italics in original). Polite (1996) emphasizes that the "debate over whether or not to use corporal punishment rages in many ethnic communities." Larzelare, Baumrind and Polite assert that "After ignoring decades of cultural differences in the effects of spanking, these 2 ARCHIVES [1997] studies and 2 other studies in the past year have each found significantly different effects for African Americans than for non-Hispanic European Americans. The effects of spanking in African American families are generally beneficial to children, unless it is used excessively, either in severity or in frequency." (Larzelere et al., 1998; references to other articles omitted). Our results confirm the serious differences of opinion on discipline, even in a relatively homogenous ethnic community.[16]

Parenting Styles[edit]

There are different parenting styles which parents use to discipline their children. Four types have been identified: authoritative parents, authoritarian parents, indulgent parents, and indifferent parents. Authoritative parents are parents who use warmth, firm control, and rational, issue-oriented discipline, in which emphasis is placed on the development of self-direction. They place a high value on the development of autonomy and self-direction but assume the ultimate responsibility for their child's behavior."You live under my roof, you follow my rules!" is a cliché, but one that parents may often find themselves speaking—and it probably most closely mimics the authoritative parenting style.[17] Authoritarian parents are parents who use punitive, absolute, and forceful discipline, and who place a premium on obedience and conformity. Parents exhibit good emotional understanding and control, children also learn to manage their own emotions and learn to understand others as well. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43-88. These parents believe it is their responsibility to provide for their children and that their children have no right to tell the parent how best to do this. Adults are expected to know from experience what is really in the child's best interest and so adult views are allowed to take precedence over child desires. Children are perceived to know what they want but not necessarily what is best for them.[18] Indulgent parentsare parents who are characterized by responsiveness but low demandingness, and who are mainly concerned with the child's happiness. They behave in an accepting, benign, and somewhat more passive way in matters of discipline. Indifferent parents are parents who are characterized by low levels of both responsiveness and demandingness. They try to do whatever is necessary to minimize the time and energy they must devote to interacting with their child. In extreme cases, indifferent parents may be neglectful.[19] They ask very little of their children. For instance, they rarely assign their children chores. They tend to be relatively uninvolved in their children's lives. It's not that they don't love their children. It's just that they believe their children should live their own lives, as free of parental control as possible.[18] Connected parents are parents who want to improve the way in which they connect with their children using an empathetic approach to challenging or even tumultuous relationships. Using a the 'CALM' technique, by Jennifer Kolari, parents recognize the importance of empathy and aspire to build capacity in their children in hopes of them becoming confident and emotionally resilient. The CALM acronym stands for: Connect emotionally, match the Affect of the child, Listen to what your child is saying and Mirror their emotion back to show understanding. [20]

Non-physical discipline[edit]

Non-physical discipline consists of both punitive and non-punitive methods, but does not include any forms of corporal punishment such as smacking or spanking. The regular use of any single form of discipline becomes less effective when used too often, a process psychologists call habituation. Thus, no single method is considered to be for exclusive use. Non-Physical discipline is used in the concerted cultivation style of parenting that comes from the middle and upper class. concerted cultivation is the method of parenting that includes heavy parental involvement, and use reasoning and bargaining as disciplinary methods.[21]

Time-outs[edit]

Main article: Child time-out

A common method of child discipline is sending the child away from the family or group after misbehavior. Children may be told to stand in the corner ("corner time") or may be sent to their rooms for a period of time. A time-out involves isolating or separating a child for a few minutes, and is intended to give an over-excited child time to calm down.

Time-out, painting by Carl Larsson

Alternatively, time-outs have been recommended[by whom?] as a time for parents to separate feelings of anger toward the child for their behavior and to develop a plan for discipline.

When using time-outs as a discipline strategy, individuals must also take into consideration the temperaments of the child if one decides to use time-outs. If a child, for example, has a feisty temperament, or a temperament that expresses emotion in a highly intense way, then discipline strategies of using time-outs would be ineffective because of the clash of discipline strategy to the child's temperament trait.[22]

If an individual decides to use the time-out with a child as a discipline strategy, the individual must be unemotional and consistent with the undesired behavior. Along with taking into consideration the child's temperament, the length of the time-out needs to also depend on the age of the child. For example, the time-out should last one minute per year of the child's age, so if the child is five years old, the time-out should go no longer than five minutes.[23]

Several experts do not recommend the use of time-out or any other form of punishment. These authors include Thomas Gordon, Alfie Kohn, and Aletha Solter.[24][25][26][27]

Grounding[edit]

Grounding is a form of punishment, usually for older children, preteens and teenagers, that restricts their movement outside of the home, such as visiting friends or using the car and they are not allowed to go anywhere but school. Sometimes it is combined with the withdrawal of privileges for computer, video games, telephone or TV.

Scolding[edit]

Scolding involves reproving or criticizing a child's negative behavior and/or actions.

Some research suggests that scolding is counter-productive because parental attention (including negative attention) tends to reinforce behavior.[28]

Non-punitive discipline[edit]

While punishments may be of limited value in consistently influencing rule-related behavior, non-punitive discipline techniques have been found to have greater impact on children who have begun to master their native language.[29] Non-punitive discipline (also known as empathic discipline and positive discipline) is an approach to child-rearing that does not use any form of punishment. It is about loving guidance, and requires parents to have a strong relationship with their child so that the child responds to gentle guidance as opposed to threats and punishment. According to Dr. Laura Markham, the most effective discipline strategy is to make sure your child wants to please you.[30]

Non-punitive discipline also excludes systems of "manipulative" rewards. Instead, a child's behavior is shaped by "democratic interaction" and by deepening parent-child communication. The reasoning behind it is that while punitive measures may stop the problem behavior in the short term, by themselves they do not provide a learning opportunity that allows children the autonomy to change their own behavior.[31] Punishments such as time-outs may be seen as banishment and humiliation. Consequences as a form of punishment are not recommended, but natural consequences are considered to be possibly worthwhile learning experiences provided there is no risk of lasting harm.[30]

Positive discipline is a general term that refers to both non-violent discipline and non-punitive discipline. Criticizing, discouraging, creating obstacles and barriers, blaming, shaming, using sarcastic or cruel humor, or using physical punishment are some negative disciplinary methods used with young children. Any parent may occasionally do any of these things, but doing them more than once in a while may lead to low self-esteem becoming a permanent part of the child's personality.[32]

Authors in this field include Aletha Solter, Alfie Kohn, Pam Leo, Haim Ginott, Thomas Gordon, Lawrence J. Cohen, and John Gottman.

Essential aspects[edit]

In the past, harsh discipline has been the norm for families in society. However, research by psychologists has brought about new forms of effective discipline. Positive discipline is based on minimizing the child's frustrations and misbehavior rather than giving punishments. The main focus in this method is the "Golden Rule", treat others the way you want to be treated. Parents follow this when disciplining their children because they believe that their point will reach the children more effectively rather than traditional discipline. The foundation of this style of discipline is encouraging children to feel good about themselves and building the parent's relationship with the child so the child wants to please the parent. In traditional discipline, parents would install fear in their child by using shame and humiliation to get their point across. However, studies show that this type of punishment ultimately causes the children to have more psychological problems in their adolescence and adulthood. Physical and harsh punishment shows the child that violence and negative treatment is acceptable in some circumstances, wheres, positive discipline demonstrates the opposite. In positive discipline the parents avoid negative treatment and focus on the importance of communication and showing unconditional love. Other important aspects are reasonable and age-appropriate expectations, feeding healthy foods and providing enough rest, giving clear instructions which may need to be repeated, looking for the causes of any misbehavior and making adjustments, and building routines. Children are helped by knowing what is happening in their lives. Having some predictability about their day without necessarily being regimental will help reduce frustration and misbehavior.[33] Not only are the children taught to be open-minded, but the parents must demonstrate this as well.

Methods[edit]

Praise and rewards[edit]

Main article: Operant conditioning

Simply giving the child spontaneous expressions of appreciation or acknowledgement when they are not misbehaving will act as a reinforcer for good behavior. Focusing on good behavior versus bad behavior will encourage appropriate behavior in the given situation. According to B. F. Skinner, past behavior that is reinforced with praise is likely to repeat in the same or similar situation.[34]

In operant conditioning, schedules of reinforcement are an important component of the learning process. When and how often we reinforce a behavior can have a dramatic impact on the strength and rate of the response. A schedule of reinforcement is basically a rule stating which instances of a behavior will be reinforced. In some case, a behavior might be reinforced every time it occurs. Sometimes, a behavior might not be reinforced at all. Either positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement might be used, depending on the situation. In both cases, the goal of reinforcement is always to strengthen the behavior and increase the likelihood that it will occur again in the future. In real-world settings, behaviors are probably not going to be reinforced each and every time they occur. For situations where you are purposely trying to train and reinforce an action, such as in the classroom, in sports or in animal training, you might opt to follow a specific reinforcement schedule. As you'll see below, some schedules are best suited to certain types of training situations. In some cases, training might call for starting out with one schedule and switching to another once the desired behavior has been taught.[35]

Example of Operant Conditioning'

Positive reinforcement: Whenever he is being good, cooperative, solves things non-aggressively, immediately reward those behaviors with praise, attention, goodies.

Punishment: If acting aggressively, give immediate, undesired consequence (send to corner; say "NO!" and couple with response cost).

Response cost: Most common would be "time-out." Removing sources of attention by placing in an environment without other people. Careful: This can become (aversive) punishment, depending on how done. To be response cost, it can only simply be taking away a desirable thing; not adding a negative one.

Negative reinforcement: One example would be to couple negative reinforcement with response cost—after some period of time in which he has acted cooperatively or calmly while in the absence of others, can bring him back with others. Thus, taking away the isolation should reinforce the desired behavior (being cooperative).

Extinction: Simply ignoring behaviors should lead to extinction. Note: that initially when ignored, can expect an initial increase in the behavior—a very trying time in situations such as a child that is acting out. [36]

It is common for children who are otherwise ignored by their parents to turn to misbehavior as a way of seeking attention.[37] An example is a child screaming for attention. Parents often inadvertently reward the bad behavior by immediately giving them the attention, thereby reinforcing it. On the other hand, parents may wait until the child calms down and speaks politely, then reward the more polite behavior with the attention.

Natural consequences[edit]

Main article: Operant conditioning

Natural consequences involve children learning from their own mistakes. In this method, the parent's job is to teach the child which behaviors are inappropriate. In order to do this, parents should allow the child to make a mistake and let them experience the natural results from their behavior. For instance, if a child forgets to bring his lunch to school, he will find himself hungry later. Using natural consequences would be indicative of the theory of accomplishment of natural growth, which is the parenting style of the working class and poor. The accomplishment of natural growth focuses on separation between children and family. Children are given directives and expected to carry them out without complaint or delay. Children are responsible for themselves during their free time, and the parent's main concern is caring for the children's physical needs.[38] In order for this method to be effective the parents cannot shield their child from harm or from getting in trouble. They must allow for the mistake to occur in order for the child to learn the consequences. For example, a basic natural consequence is that if the child touches a hot pot he will get burned. The consequence is usually immediate, and the parent may have little control when protecting the child. However, the pain is the consequence of touching the pot which will teach the child to not do that again.

Internal discipline and democracy[edit]

Main articles: Discipline in Sudbury Model Democratic Schools and Sudbury Valley School

Sudbury model democratic schools, attended by children ages 4 to 19, claim that popularly-based authority can maintain order more effectively than dictatorial authority for governments and schools alike.

Furthermore they emphasize that much more important than the externals of order is the question of the sources of internal discipline: how does an individual come to develop the inner strength and character that endows his life with order and coherence, an independent person appropriate to a free republic of co-equal citizens, capable of making decisions within a rational, self-consistent framework—a person treating and being treated with respect?

They affirm that the hallmark of the independent person is the ability to bear responsibility and since there is no way of teaching or training another person for self-sufficiency, there is no technique for obtaining or transmitting these traits. Hence, the only way a person becomes responsible for himself is for him to be responsible for himself, with no reservation or qualifications. Thence the need to permit children, at home and school, freedom of choice, freedom of action, and freedom to bear the results of action—the three great freedoms that constitute personal responsibility.[39][40][41]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Effective discipline for children". Canadian Paediatric Society. Retrieved 29 November 2012. 
  2. ^ Smenyak, Sarah. "The difference between discipline and child abuse". Demand Media. Retrieved 29 November 2012. 
  3. ^ Papalia, D.E.; Wendkos-Olds, S.; Duskin-Feldman, R. (2006). A Child's World: Infancy Through Adolescence (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 
  4. ^ "Encouraging better behavior - A practical guide to positive parenting". NSPCC. 2003. Retrieved 25 March 2008. [dead link]
  5. ^ Pollock, Linda A. (1983). "5". Forgotten children: parent-child relations from 1500 to 1900. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-25009-9. 
  6. ^ a b Fleming, Sandy. "How has child discipline changed?". Demand Media. Retrieved 29 November 2012. 
  7. ^ "Eight Misconceptions About Spanking". Learn The Bible. Retrieved 19 September 2009. 
  8. ^ Hanawalt, Barbara (1986). The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. p. 182. 
  9. ^ "The Medieval Child, Part 4: The Playful Years". About.com. Retrieved 21 September 2009. 
  10. ^ a b "Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society - Discipline". FAQs.org. Retrieved 21 September 2009. 
  11. ^ a b Dobson, James (1977). Dare to Discipline. Bantam Books isbn=0-553-22841-2. 
  12. ^ Wright, Susan (19 June 1985). "Parents and Experts Split on Spanking". The New York Times. p. C9. 
  13. ^ Millichamp, Jane; Martin, J.; Langley, J. (2006). "On the receiving end: young adults describe their parents' use of physical punishment and other disciplinary measures during childhood". The New Zealand Medical Journal 119 (1228): U1818. PMID 16462926. 
  14. ^ a b Sullivan, Tom (5 October 2009). "In 30 years without spanking, are Swedish children better behaved?". The Christian Science Monitor (Boston). 
  15. ^ :DELAWARE STATE SENATE 146th GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SENATE BILL NO. 234, AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN.
    Amending Chapter 5, Title 11 of the Delaware Code by redesignating Section 1100 of Chapter 5, Title 11 as Section 1100A of Chapter 5, Title 11 and further by redesignating current Section 1103 of Chapter 5, Title 11 as Section 1100, of Chapter 5, Title 11, and by further amending the current language of that section ...
    This act amends Chapter 5 §1100 to provide as follows:
    Definitions relating to children:
    When used in this subchapter:
    ...
    (j) "Physical injury" to a child shall mean any impairment of physical condition or pain.
  16. ^ Amuwo, Shaffdeen; Robert Fabian; Jacqueline Hill; Ardith Spence; George Tolley (2004). Journal of Socio-Economics 33 (2): 153–173 http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.innopac.library.unr.edu/science/article/pii/S1053535703001185 |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 10 December 2013. 
  17. ^ http://parentingliteracy.com/parenting-a-z/44-overview/47-parenting-styles/
  18. ^ a b Parenting Styles. Written by Joseph Lao, Ph.D
  19. ^ Steingberg, Laurence (2011). Adolescence. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. pp. 128–129. ISBN 978-0-07-353203-5. 
  20. ^ last=Kolari |first=Jennifer |title= Connected Parenting|year=2009|publisher=Viking Canada|location=Toronto
  21. ^ Lareau, Annette (2011). Unequal Childhoods. University of California Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-520-27142-5. 
  22. ^ Marion, Marian (2007). Guidance of Young Children. Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 47. ISBN 0-13-154530-2. 
  23. ^ "Effective discipline for children". Paediatrics Child Health 9 (1): 37–41. January 2004. PMC 2719514. PMID 19654979. Retrieved 30 November 2012. 
  24. ^ Gordon, T. (2000). Parent Effectiveness Training: The Proven Program for Raising Responsible Children. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
  25. ^ Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional Parenting: Moving From Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason. New York, NY: Atria Books
  26. ^ Solter, A. (1989). Helping Young Children Flourish. Goleta, CA: Shining Star Press, and Solter, A. (2013). Attachment Play. Goleta, CA: Shining Star Press.
  27. ^ Solter, A. (2002). The disadvantages of time-out. http://www.awareparenting.com/timeout.htm
  28. ^ Kazdin, Alan E. (15 September 2009). "10 Tips for Parents of Defiant Children". ABC News. Retrieved 28 January 2011. 
  29. ^ Toner, Ignatius J. (1986). "Punitive and non-punitive discipline and subsequent rule-following in young children". Child and Youth Care Forum 15 (1): 27–37. doi:10.1007/BF01118991. 
  30. ^ a b Markham, Dr. Laura. "How to Use Positive Discipline". Aha! Parenting. Retrieved 28 October 2009. 
  31. ^ "Non-punitive discipline". Inside Out Counselling. Retrieved 28 October 2009. 
  32. ^ "Positive discipline". AtHealth.com. 20 May 2008. Retrieved 28 October 2009. 
  33. ^ "The Nanny Show and you". Parenting and Child Health Services South Australia. Retrieved 1 November 2009. 
  34. ^ Skinner, B.F. About Behaviorism.
  35. ^ SKINNER, B. F. The behavior of organisms. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1938.
  36. ^ Zeilberger, J., Sampen, S., & Sloan, H. (1968). Modification of a child's problem behaviors in the home with the mother as therapist. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 47-53.)
  37. ^ "How can I discipline my children?". London: BBC. Retrieved 13 July 2009. 
  38. ^ Lareau, Annette (2011). Unequal Childhoods. University of California Press. pp. 2–4. ISBN 978-0-520-27142-5. 
  39. ^ The Crisis in American Education — An Analysis and a Proposal, The Sudbury Valley School (1970), Law and Order: Foundations of Discipline (pg. 49-55). Retrieved 10 January 2010.
  40. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience Back to Basics. Accessed 10 January 2010.
  41. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987). Child Rearing. Retrieved 10 January 2010.

Further reading[edit]